How Obama's tire tariffs have hurt consumers

[Leroy N. Soetoro]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/23/how-obamas-
tire-tariffs-have-hurt-consumers/

During the candidates’ discussion of China Monday night, Barack Obama
touted the tariffs he imposed on Chinese-manufactured tires:

We had a tire case in which they were flooding us with cheap domestic
tires — or — or cheap Chinese tires. And we put a stop to it and as a
consequence saved jobs throughout America. I have to say that Governor
Romney criticized me for being too tough in that tire case; said this
wouldn’t be good for American workers and that it would be protectionist.

But I tell you, those workers don’t feel that way. They feel as if they
had finally an administration who was going to take this issue seriously.

This came up in our liveblog and charting of the debate, but it’s worth
emphasizing what a bad deal those tariffs were for consumers. The best
evaluation of the program comes from Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Sean Lowry at
the Peterson Institute. Their study found that after Obama imposed the
tariffs, employment in the U.S. tire industry grew by 1,200 jobs. Hufbauer
and Lowry figure that this is the maximum number of jobs the tariffs could
have created or saved, a generous assumption given that tire employment
was already trending upward:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-
klein/files/2012/10/tire_employment.jpg

How much did those 1,200 jobs cost? About $1.1 billion, Hufbauer and Lowry
found, all borne by consumers who were forced to pay higher American
prices for tires, prices which shot up still higher when freed from
competition with China:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-
klein/files/2012/10/ppi_tires1.jpg

That’s about $900,000 per job, and likely more given how generous the
1,200 jobs saved figure is. By contrast, one study found that the state
aid provisions of the stimulus cost $28,571.43 per job-year saved, while
another three studies put the overall cost-per-job for the bill at around
$250,000. And the cost of the stimulus is ultimately borne through the
income tax, which is highly progressive, while higher consumer prices are
disproportionately borne by the poor.

Economists are unanimous that trade, and trade with China in particular,
is good for the United States. And tire tariffs impede that. They were a
raw deal for U.S. consumers, and a rawer deal for Chinese factory workers
who were put out of jobs. Hufbauer and Lowry found that tire imports from
China fell by 67 percent due to the tariff, which in addition to hurting
U.S. consumers, surely hit Chinese manufacturing workers as well.


--
Obama's black racist USAG appointee.

Eric Holder, racist black United States Attorney General drops voter
intimidation charges against the Black Panthers, "You are about to be
ruled by the black man, cracker!"

Eric Holder, prejudiced black United States Attorney General settles the
hate crime debate, "Whites Not Protected by Hate Crime Laws."

Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New
York's million dollar tax evasion.

Barack Obama and Eric Holder, committed treason by knowingly and
deliberately arming enemies of the United States of America through
Operation Fast and Furious. Complicit in the murder of Federal employees
during the execution of their duties.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Dave Head]

We wouldn't need tariffs of any sort if we simply passed the Fair Tax.
The Fair Tax eliminates ALL income tax, including the egregious 35%
corporate income taxes. With corporate income taxes gone, our
industry would be making the high-quality, low price goods of the
world, and jobs would return to America. Its our income taxes, not
our labor rates that make our jobs go overseas.

[emoneyjoe]

I thought you were a serious thinker, this
suggests you are a European socialist, or
worse, proposing a tax that would shut down
sales in the US overnight, and leave the
government with half the revenue it has now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax


Exports because of lower production
costs will not make up for loss of sales in
the US resulting from a national sales tax,
US retail sales of $10 Trillion would require
a 35% national sales tax to provide the
revenue required.

There is nothing the buying public hates
more than taxes, it is time government tried
to figure out a way to operate without taking
money from people.

[Nate Nagel]

As long as China doesn't let the yuan float against other world
currencies we will still need tariffs. Everyone who's stated that China
is a currency manipulator is 100% correct.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[Brent]

The federal reserve and US federal government is the top currency
manipulator.

(highlights here: http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/rickards1.1.1.html )

The US federal government also backs up its manipulations with military
action. Iraq and Libya were in part the result of the desire of the
rulers of both nations to separate from and/or challenge the federal
reserve note. The former simply wanted oil sales in something else, the
later was going for a gold based African currency. Iran's major crime?
Oil sales outside the USD and keeping the big international banks out.

Also, the so-called fair tax isn't fair. Ultimately it would be another
expansion of federal power. The income tax should simply be removed.
Period.

[Dave Head]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:21:26 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:

Spending is more reliable than employment, and the FT would have made
$189 billion more over the last few years than the income taxes took
in.

What makes you think that sales would go down? People would have LOTS
more money in their pockets from not paying income taxes, and the
prices of AMERICAN MADE products would go down because of the
corporate income taxes not costing the American businesses piles of
mnoey to pay. Personally, I'd have about $13K more to spend each year
because of not paying income taxes.

Oh, and don't forget that the income tax burden gets removed from
AMERICAN manufacturers, but FOREIGN manufacturers don't have an
American corporate income tax burden to remove, so foreign products
would NOT go down in price. Instant tariff, without passing a tariff
law. It is 100% compliant with WTO rules, too.

And... there is NO way for gov't to operate without getting money from
people. People are the only source of money. That's why business
taxation doesn't make sense, either - business NEVER pays taxes, only
the customers pay the tax thru higher prices for goods and services
provided by the business, employees pay the tax thru lower wages, and
stockholders pay the tax thru diminished dividends from their stocks.

Now, we can avoid TAKING money from people by repealing the income
taxes. Income taxes are just legalized theft by the gov't - the only
difference between armed robbery and income taxes is that income taxes
are predictable and there's no gun involved. Armed robbery is always
a surprise... But with the Fair Tax, the people decide how much tax
they want to pay. If they don't want to pay the tax on that 72"
wide-screen TV, then don't buy the TV. Then you don't have to pay
that tax.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I've already laid this issue to rest here.... all the Federal government
needs to do is print enough money each year to fund the Federal
government's budget.

The more they waste or "print" then the less your money in your pocket
and bank account are worth and the more a loaf of bread and a gallon of
gas will cost. It is a totally hidden Value Added Tax (VAT) tax.

>
> What makes you think that sales would go down? People would have LOTS
> more money in their pockets from not paying income taxes, and the
> prices of AMERICAN MADE products would go down because of the
> corporate income taxes not costing the American businesses piles of
> mnoey to pay. Personally, I'd have about $13K more to spend each year
> because of not paying income taxes.

That would make way too much sense.

> Oh, and don't forget that the income tax burden gets removed from
> AMERICAN manufacturers, but FOREIGN manufacturers don't have an
> American corporate income tax burden to remove, so foreign products
> would NOT go down in price. Instant tariff, without passing a tariff
> law. It is 100% compliant with WTO rules, too.

You are making way too much sense, no Liberal would ever go along with
this idea. They need to feel good and to feel good they need to tax and
then give away the money they taxed.

>
> And... there is NO way for gov't to operate without getting money from
> people. People are the only source of money.

I tell Liberals this and they look very confused when tell that to them.


They think government creates money so I think MY plan of printing the
money to pay the budget each year is bullet proof since Liberals will
understand it. And it eliminates all deficits, there will never bee a
need to borrow money ever again, so we can take that power out of teh
constitution and ban all Federal borrowing as long as we have a fiat dollar.

> That's why business
> taxation doesn't make sense, either - business NEVER pays taxes, only
> the customers pay the tax thru higher prices for goods and services

Well... actually only the people that do the work and create wealth pay
the tax. People that do nothing in the way of "work or investing which
is also work" those people don't have anything they can pay a tax with,
their money was either given to them or stolen by them from those that
created that wealth.

> provided by the business, employees pay the tax thru lower wages, and
> stockholders pay the tax thru diminished dividends from their stocks.
>
> Now, we can avoid TAKING money from people by repealing the income
> taxes. Income taxes are just legalized theft by the gov't - the only
> difference between armed robbery and income taxes is that income taxes
> are predictable and there's no gun involved.

When you don't pay your Income tax, you will see guns coming in your
direction.

Welcome to legalized robbery.

> Armed robbery is always
> a surprise...

I finally have to disagree here, I expect it every April 15th. They use
their guns as sure as Al Capone used his gunmen to make clear the threat
of force when you didn't comply with his required payments and had to be
asked twice.

> But with the Fair Tax, the people decide how much tax
> they want to pay. If they don't want to pay the tax on that 72"
> wide-screen TV, then don't buy the TV. Then you don't have to pay
> that tax.

Correct, you buy a 19 inch TV or like me, I didn't buy one at all. My TV
quit working and I chose *NOT* to replace it.

But I don't have to earn the money to buy a new TV so I also didn't pay
the income tax on that money I never earned.... why earn the money and
pay a tax when I don't need the money because I don't need the TV. So
with the Income tax, the economy is losing on my work that I would do if
it weren't being taxed.... (THAT'S SOCIALISM FOR YOU) But with income
tax, doing work makes me money that I don't use that will then be taxed.
Why would I work when I can be home with family and friends enjoying my
life? The economy slows down because I have all the gismo's I need and
working for more money is only rewarded with more taxes and less and
less useless cash that loses value every day.

The government has you on a treadmill that keeps you working so you can
endlessly pay the tax on money you really didn't need in the first
place. It is like Diogenes said.

*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

He could see the future of taxation or maybe it just hasn't changed any
in 2000 years, and the Lords still send out their armed tax collectors
to keep us all poor serfs.


--
*Rumination*
#24.0.1 - All businesses strive to stay in business.... How any one will
do that is never exactly the same as the rest, because no two businesses
are exactly the same. That's why Socialism's "one size fits all" central
planning doesn't work.

[emoneyjoe]

But it needed $1200 Billion to break even.

>What makes you think that sales would go down?

I know they would, I have seen people
decide not to buy because the seller would
not waive a 6% sales tax.

>People would have LOTS
>more money in their pockets from not paying income taxes,

That is the theory, but the add-on tax
is more obvious, and has to be a higher
percentage than the less obvious taxes.

>and the
>prices of AMERICAN MADE products would go down because of the
>corporate income taxes not costing the American businesses piles of
>mnoey to pay. Personally, I'd have about $13K more to spend each year
>because of not paying income taxes.

Not really after paying the add-on tax.

Europe style taxes and socialism sucks,
I agree all income type taxes should be
done away with, but some method to
provide federal funding is needed.

Earlier today I realized for the first
time that the US is productive enough
to have the current level of social
programs, because they exist, and if
it wasn't for oil imports, the US would
have a positive trade balance.

So if all of us drove electric cars,
we would be self sufficient, and if a
plan could be worked out so that
federal spending didn't have to be
borrowed, things would be really
fantastic.

>Oh, and don't forget that the income tax burden gets removed from
>AMERICAN manufacturers, but FOREIGN manufacturers don't have an
>American corporate income tax burden to remove, so foreign products
>would NOT go down in price. Instant tariff, without passing a tariff
>law. It is 100% compliant with WTO rules, too.

That is a good feature, but not too
important because product imports are
probably less than product exports, all
plans worth considering have some
good features, but none legislated
seem to work too great, Europe is
in danger of a major financial shake-up.

>And... there is NO way for gov't to operate without getting money from
>people. People are the only source of money.

True, but there are ways to make that
work more fairly without actually stealing
by legislation.

>That's why business
>taxation doesn't make sense, either - business NEVER pays taxes, only
>the customers pay the tax thru higher prices for goods and services
>provided by the business, employees pay the tax thru lower wages, and
>stockholders pay the tax thru diminished dividends from their stocks.

Business would be much more efficient
and productive if taxes were eliminated,
and it can be done, but a lot of planning
is needed.
Socialism should be financial only,
with no mandates and no taxes, nothing
forced, then freedom can coexist with
reasonable and adequate social programs.

>Now, we can avoid TAKING money from people by repealing the income
>taxes. Income taxes are just legalized theft by the gov't - the only
>difference between armed robbery and income taxes is that income taxes
>are predictable and there's no gun involved. Armed robbery is always
>a surprise... But with the Fair Tax, the people decide how much tax
>they want to pay. If they don't want to pay the tax on that 72"
>wide-screen TV, then don't buy the TV. Then you don't have to pay
>that tax.

I agree with eliminating all income type
taxes, but not with a national sales tax or
VAT.

Since the physical products needed
today are not only sufficient, they are
plentiful, showing that some system
can exist and continue indefinitely.

The live birth rate screwed things
up temporally, but that will work itself
out in 25 or 30 years.
What is needed is a change in the
way money is created, with the knowledge
that money is just the grease of the wheels
of commerce.

As much as I love coin collecting
(a by-gone hobby because of metals
speculation), currency has become
a problem, allowing an underground
commerce, which accounts for more
than half of the federal budget deficit.

As a temporary measure, government
should stop borrowing new money,
and just borrow to roll over the debt
and pay the interest while permanent
plans are made.
Emoney can be created in a short
time to fund social programs, just as
if the social program funding would
have been properly planned in the
first place.

This is the only way the size of
the monster funding problem can
be managed, playing with tax law
and spending cuts only does more
harm.

[emoneyjoe]

No, you haven't. Your sarcasm and possibly
some measure of snobbery just confuses the
issue.

>all the Federal government
>needs to do is print enough money each year to fund the Federal
>government's budget.

Don't use the word "print", paper floating
around causes a problem, people are always
trying to get rid of it, while money in an account
is never a problem.

>The more they waste or "print" then the less your money in your pocket
>and bank account are worth and the more a loaf of bread and a gallon of
>gas will cost. It is a totally hidden Value Added Tax (VAT) tax.

That is a popular theory and apparently
your opinion, but it obviously is not true.

Money created needs a way to destroy
part of it at the proper place. Printed
money costs money to print, costs to
transport, costs to own (lost interest),
and costs to destroy.

>> What makes you think that sales would go down? People would have LOTS
>> more money in their pockets from not paying income taxes, and the
>> prices of AMERICAN MADE products would go down because of the
>> corporate income taxes not costing the American businesses piles of
>> mnoey to pay. Personally, I'd have about $13K more to spend each year
>> because of not paying income taxes.
>
>That would make way too much sense.

That is what the socialists in Europe thought.

>> Oh, and don't forget that the income tax burden gets removed from
>> AMERICAN manufacturers, but FOREIGN manufacturers don't have an
>> American corporate income tax burden to remove, so foreign products
>> would NOT go down in price. Instant tariff, without passing a tariff
>> law. It is 100% compliant with WTO rules, too.
>
>You are making way too much sense, no Liberal would ever go along with
>this idea. They need to feel good and to feel good they need to tax and
>then give away the money they taxed.

You mean give away the money they borrow.

>> And... there is NO way for gov't to operate without getting money from
>> people. People are the only source of money.
>I tell Liberals this and they look very confused when tell that to them.
>
>
>They think government creates money so I think MY plan of printing the
>money to pay the budget each year is bullet proof since Liberals will
>understand it. And it eliminates all deficits, there will never bee a
>need to borrow money ever again, so we can take that power out of teh
>constitution and ban all Federal borrowing as long as we have a fiat dollar.

Look, the social programs in place would
be difficult to end, so a rational way to fund
them is needed.
Creating emoney on a temporary basis
is the only way that can be done without
borrowing.

>> That's why business
>> taxation doesn't make sense, either - business NEVER pays taxes, only
>> the customers pay the tax thru higher prices for goods and services
>
>Well... actually only the people that do the work and create wealth pay
>the tax. People that do nothing in the way of "work or investing which
>is also work" those people don't have anything they can pay a tax with,
>their money was either given to them or stolen by them from those that
>created that wealth.

That has to be a big consideration in
any discussion of tax law.

>> provided by the business, employees pay the tax thru lower wages, and
>> stockholders pay the tax thru diminished dividends from their stocks.
>>
>> Now, we can avoid TAKING money from people by repealing the income
>> taxes. Income taxes are just legalized theft by the gov't - the only
>> difference between armed robbery and income taxes is that income taxes
>> are predictable and there's no gun involved.
>
>When you don't pay your Income tax, you will see guns coming in your
>direction.
>
>Welcome to legalized robbery.

I don't think so, in 1968 I was working on
a verbal contract basis receiving 25% of revenue,
and paying my own taxes.
I made more than expected, and didn't
have the money to pay, and the IRS had no
problem with a payment schedule agreement,
but they were firm.

>> Armed robbery is always
>> a surprise...
>
>I finally have to disagree here, I expect it every April 15th. They use
>their guns as sure as Al Capone used his gunmen to make clear the threat
>of force when you didn't comply with his required payments and had to be
>asked twice.

Sounds like you would welcome elimination
of income taxes.

>> But with the Fair Tax, the people decide how much tax
>> they want to pay. If they don't want to pay the tax on that 72"
>> wide-screen TV, then don't buy the TV. Then you don't have to pay
>> that tax.
>
>
>Correct, you buy a 19 inch TV or like me, I didn't buy one at all. My TV
>quit working and I chose *NOT* to replace it.
>
>But I don't have to earn the money to buy a new TV so I also didn't pay
>the income tax on that money I never earned.... why earn the money and
>pay a tax when I don't need the money because I don't need the TV. So
>with the Income tax, the economy is losing on my work that I would do if
>it weren't being taxed.... (THAT'S SOCIALISM FOR YOU) But with income
>tax, doing work makes me money that I don't use that will then be taxed.
>Why would I work when I can be home with family and friends enjoying my
>life? The economy slows down because I have all the gismo's I need and
>working for more money is only rewarded with more taxes and less and
>less useless cash that loses value every day.

That jibberish may have some truth,
but we need to get serious about the
federal budget.

>The government has you on a treadmill that keeps you working so you can
>endlessly pay the tax on money you really didn't need in the first
>place. It is like Diogenes said.
>
>*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-
>
>He could see the future of taxation or maybe it just hasn't changed any
>in 2000 years, and the Lords still send out their armed tax collectors
>to keep us all poor serfs.

It doesn't have to be that way now,
a machine can do the work of hundreds
of men, we need a congress that can
think and take advantage of that fact.

[Gunner]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:58:51 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:

>
> Earlier today I realized for the first
>time that the US is productive enough
>to have the current level of social
>programs, because they exist, and if
>it wasn't for oil imports, the US would
>have a positive trade balance.

Today??

If it wasnt for nearly 30 million illegal aliens..we would be doing
pretty damned well also

Gunner

--
"President Obama is not going to lose. He will be re-elected. It is those of
you who have these grand fantasies of that pip-squeak Romney actually having
a chance at winning the election that will have to wake up to reality the
day after the election. I hear there is plenty of room in the rest of the
world where you can reside and establish new citizenship.
Kirby Grant,<KGr...@yahoo.com>

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:25:01 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:58:51 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Earlier today I realized for the first
>>time that the US is productive enough
>>to have the current level of social
>>programs, because they exist, and if
>>it wasn't for oil imports, the US would
>>have a positive trade balance.
>
>
>Today??
>
>If it wasnt for nearly 30 million illegal aliens..we would be doing
>pretty damned well also
>
>Gunner

That problem could be fixed in 30 days,
the liquid fuel problem will take 30 years.

The important thing is to develop a
system that balances demand and
production, and should contain a
method to keep all the basic resources
needed for production in the US, from
tool and die shops and raw material
processing.
Those are not being maintained
at present, and are far more important
than the illegal aliens.

[Dave Head]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:58:51 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>

Yeah, but FT is not an immediate cure for the deficit spending. Maybe
eventually the economy would grow to that point, but not initially,
maybe not ever.

>
>
>>What makes you think that sales would go down?
>
> I know they would, I have seen people
>decide not to buy because the seller would
>not waive a 6% sales tax.

Where are you that waiving the sales tax is legal? I've never heard
anyone try that except at flea markets, and then it was STILL
illegal...

>
>
>>People would have LOTS
>>more money in their pockets from not paying income taxes,
>
> That is the theory, but the add-on tax
>is more obvious, and has to be a higher
>percentage than the less obvious taxes.

OK, but it matters most that someone walks in the door of their local
Best Buy, has or does not have enough money to buy the 72" LED
wide-screen TV that they want. The fact is, that if they could afford
it before the FT, then they could afford it after the FT. I don't see
all that many get in a snit and not buy it if they're standing there
with $1500, the TV is $1000, and the FT is $300. I think they'll buy
the TV.

>>and the
>>prices of AMERICAN MADE products would go down because of the
>>corporate income taxes not costing the American businesses piles of
>>mnoey to pay. Personally, I'd have about $13K more to spend each year
>>because of not paying income taxes.
>
> Not really after paying the add-on tax.

No, before paying the tax. After paying (all) the tax over the year,
I'd have about $2K more...

>
> Europe style taxes and socialism sucks,
>I agree all income type taxes should be
>done away with, but some method to
>provide federal funding is needed.

Used to be excise taxes, and tariffs. Tariffs are thought to be
counterproductive now, and that leaves excise taxes, which are
basically the same consumption tax as the FT.

> Earlier today I realized for the first
>time that the US is productive enough
>to have the current level of social
>programs, because they exist, and if
>it wasn't for oil imports, the US would
>have a positive trade balance.

Obama is doing his best to keep us dependent on foreign sources, tho.
Just closed a pile of acerage out west that has oil in the shale
beneath it.

> So if all of us drove electric cars,
>we would be self sufficient, and if a
>plan could be worked out so that
>federal spending didn't have to be
>borrowed, things would be really
>fantastic.

Yep. But we need to drill in order to be self-sufficient, since
natural gas, of which we have oceans and from which we can make as
much electricity as we need, requires drilling. Electric cars will
be nice if and ony if someone invents the magic battery that will
allow cars to go 300 miles between charges. And rapid charging would
be nice, but a substitute for that would be batteries engineered to be
quick-change, so you just exchange spent batteries for newly-charged
batteries.

>
>
>>Oh, and don't forget that the income tax burden gets removed from
>>AMERICAN manufacturers, but FOREIGN manufacturers don't have an
>>American corporate income tax burden to remove, so foreign products
>>would NOT go down in price. Instant tariff, without passing a tariff
>>law. It is 100% compliant with WTO rules, too.
>
> That is a good feature, but not too
>important because product imports are
>probably less than product exports, all
>plans worth considering have some
>good features, but none legislated
>seem to work too great, Europe is
>in danger of a major financial shake-up.

Yeah, Europe is going to melt down financially like Argentina, and now
we're going to be right behind 'em, with the people screaming that
they want "free stuff from the gov't" - health care, university,
contraception, abortion, everything imaginable.

>>And... there is NO way for gov't to operate without getting money from
>>people. People are the only source of money.
>
> True, but there are ways to make that
>work more fairly without actually stealing
>by legislation.

Yep. Income tax is exactly that - theft. Comsumption taxes give
people the option of not paying them by not buying whatever it is that
they may want and is taxed.

>>That's why business
>>taxation doesn't make sense, either - business NEVER pays taxes, only
>>the customers pay the tax thru higher prices for goods and services
>>provided by the business, employees pay the tax thru lower wages, and
>>stockholders pay the tax thru diminished dividends from their stocks.
>
> Business would be much more efficient
>and productive if taxes were eliminated,
>and it can be done, but a lot of planning
>is needed.

Yep.

> Socialism should be financial only,
>with no mandates and no taxes, nothing
>forced, then freedom can coexist with
>reasonable and adequate social programs.

Not grokking that.

>
>>Now, we can avoid TAKING money from people by repealing the income
>>taxes. Income taxes are just legalized theft by the gov't - the only
>>difference between armed robbery and income taxes is that income taxes
>>are predictable and there's no gun involved. Armed robbery is always
>>a surprise... But with the Fair Tax, the people decide how much tax
>>they want to pay. If they don't want to pay the tax on that 72"
>>wide-screen TV, then don't buy the TV. Then you don't have to pay
>>that tax.
>
> I agree with eliminating all income type
>taxes, but not with a national sales tax or
>VAT.

Well, you have to tax something or gov't turns into a pumpkin.

[emoneyjoe]

Maybe is not a good way to do planning.

If it would have worked out well in Europe,
maybe your argument would have merit, in
the US, more than 20 percent would be
needed in addition to the FICA taxes.

>>>What makes you think that sales would go down?
>>
>> I know they would, I have seen people
>>decide not to buy because the seller would
>>not waive a 6% sales tax.
>
>Where are you that waiving the sales tax is legal? I've never heard
>anyone try that except at flea markets, and then it was STILL
>illegal...

Of course, but you ignored all the other
activity where not only sales tax is evaded,
but all taxes and accounting.

>>>People would have LOTS
>>>more money in their pockets from not paying income taxes,
>>
>> That is the theory, but the add-on tax
>>is more obvious, and has to be a higher
>>percentage than the less obvious taxes.
>
>OK, but it matters most that someone walks in the door of their local
>Best Buy, has or does not have enough money to buy the 72" LED
>wide-screen TV that they want. The fact is, that if they could afford
>it before the FT, then they could afford it after the FT. I don't see
>all that many get in a snit and not buy it if they're standing there
>with $1500, the TV is $1000, and the FT is $300. I think they'll buy
>the TV.

The obvious has more of an effect than
the hidden taxes, like the FICA being divided
between the employee and the employer,
that made it easier to sell to the public.

Almost every time I bought or sold
a car, the other party suggested lying
about the price either for them to avoid
tax, or to give me a break.

I would rather see no taxes at all.

>>>and the
>>>prices of AMERICAN MADE products would go down because of the
>>>corporate income taxes not costing the American businesses piles of
>>>mnoey to pay. Personally, I'd have about $13K more to spend each year
>>>because of not paying income taxes.
>>
>> Not really after paying the add-on tax.
>
>No, before paying the tax. After paying (all) the tax over the year,
>I'd have about $2K more...

That may be the estimate or just a
selling point, but in reality, may not even
be close to the truth.
A manufacturer does not count the
employee's income tax in calculating the
wholesale price, your suggestion that
prices would be lower by what employees
pay in income tax can't be supported.

The markups and add-ons of the
distribution varies a lot, some items are
less than 30 percent mark-up, others
are near 90 percent, depending on
how many middle men there are and
the amount of the final price.

>> Europe style taxes and socialism sucks,
>>I agree all income type taxes should be
>>done away with, but some method to
>>provide federal funding is needed.
>
>Used to be excise taxes, and tariffs. Tariffs are thought to be
>counterproductive now, and that leaves excise taxes, which are
>basically the same consumption tax as the FT.

For a continuing growth in exports,
all attempts to compensate for loss of
tax revenue on imports and on money
manipulation should be non-obvious.
A FT might provide that to an extent,
but the harmful effects would be way
too big. Asking the retailer to collect
all that tax has problems in itself, in a
business in financial trouble, it might
provide a slush fund for misappropriation,
leaving the government without the
revenue, and the business owner in
debt or in jail.

>> Earlier today I realized for the first
>>time that the US is productive enough
>>to have the current level of social
>>programs, because they exist, and if
>>it wasn't for oil imports, the US would
>>have a positive trade balance.
>
>Obama is doing his best to keep us dependent on foreign sources, tho.
>Just closed a pile of acerage out west that has oil in the shale
>beneath it.

There are a lot of people that feel
we should be importing oil instead of
burning our own, depleting it.
And CO2 and pollution in the
production is a big emotional issue
with some.
It remains to be seen how much
the courts support the continued
foot dragging on domestic drilling.

>> So if all of us drove electric cars,
>>we would be self sufficient, and if a
>>plan could be worked out so that
>>federal spending didn't have to be
>>borrowed, things would be really
>>fantastic.
>
>Yep. But we need to drill in order to be self-sufficient, since
>natural gas, of which we have oceans and from which we can make as
>much electricity as we need, requires drilling. Electric cars will
>be nice if and ony if someone invents the magic battery that will
>allow cars to go 300 miles between charges. And rapid charging would
>be nice, but a substitute for that would be batteries engineered to be
>quick-change, so you just exchange spent batteries for newly-charged
>batteries.

A lot can be gained by just having
a small capacity battery and a small
ICE, with regenerative braking but
that doesn't seem to be the current
effort.

There could be a lot of jobs created
if all-out production was allowed, and
it would make a big difference in the
balance of trade.
But it seems evident that Obama
went into office with pre-conceived
notions about global warming and
pollution.

>>>Oh, and don't forget that the income tax burden gets removed from
>>>AMERICAN manufacturers, but FOREIGN manufacturers don't have an
>>>American corporate income tax burden to remove, so foreign products
>>>would NOT go down in price. Instant tariff, without passing a tariff
>>>law. It is 100% compliant with WTO rules, too.
>>
>> That is a good feature, but not too
>>important because product imports are
>>probably less than product exports, all
>>plans worth considering have some
>>good features, but none legislated
>>seem to work too great, Europe is
>>in danger of a major financial shake-up.
>
>Yeah, Europe is going to melt down financially like Argentina, and now
>we're going to be right behind 'em, with the people screaming that
>they want "free stuff from the gov't" - health care, university,
>contraception, abortion, everything imaginable.

The pensions are a big factor, more
and more companies and people are
realizing that a company can't pay
a pension for 20 years service.
I feel this is becoming a national
security issue, and the creation of
money by government is not something
we need to know.

>>>And... there is NO way for gov't to operate without getting money from
>>>people. People are the only source of money.
>>
>> True, but there are ways to make that
>>work more fairly without actually stealing
>>by legislation.
>
>Yep. Income tax is exactly that - theft. Comsumption taxes give
>people the option of not paying them by not buying whatever it is that
>they may want and is taxed.

But tying federal revenue to sales or
GDP causes a stability problem, another
way to provide revenue could enhance
stability.
The way money is created now seems
to depend on the construction industry,
and that causes big ups and downs.

>>>That's why business
>>>taxation doesn't make sense, either - business NEVER pays taxes, only
>>>the customers pay the tax thru higher prices for goods and services
>>>provided by the business, employees pay the tax thru lower wages, and
>>>stockholders pay the tax thru diminished dividends from their stocks.
>>
>> Business would be much more efficient
>>and productive if taxes were eliminated,
>>and it can be done, but a lot of planning
>>is needed.
>
>Yep.

If you think that way, I don't understand
why you favor a FT.

>> Socialism should be financial only,
>>with no mandates and no taxes, nothing
>>forced, then freedom can coexist with
>>reasonable and adequate social programs.
>
>Not grokking that.
>
>>
>>>Now, we can avoid TAKING money from people by repealing the income
>>>taxes. Income taxes are just legalized theft by the gov't - the only
>>>difference between armed robbery and income taxes is that income taxes
>>>are predictable and there's no gun involved. Armed robbery is always
>>>a surprise... But with the Fair Tax, the people decide how much tax
>>>they want to pay. If they don't want to pay the tax on that 72"
>>>wide-screen TV, then don't buy the TV. Then you don't have to pay
>>>that tax.
>>
>> I agree with eliminating all income type
>>taxes, but not with a national sales tax or
>>VAT.
>
>Well, you have to tax something or gov't turns into a pumpkin.

Not necessarily, a lot of things are
possible if people try to think of better
ways.
Science fiction has looked at some
different ways of funding government,
but the only options considered now
seem to be what the two political
parties favor.

More taxes are not popular, and
reducing existing social programs
would cause a lot of trouble.

The need for more revenue is
so large, conventional thought just
doesn't have a chance of solving
the problems.
The economic system is by far
the most efficient, but government
has loaded itself down with too big
a burden on the backs of taxpayers.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

BINGO.... but they tax nothing like taxing us for NOT buyingObamaCare.....

--
*Welcome to Socialism*


-Kum bay ya-

[jim]

emoneyjoe wrote:

>
> But tying federal revenue to sales or
> GDP causes a stability problem, another
> way to provide revenue could enhance
> stability.

You have that backwards. There is no stability problem
with govt running a deficit. Its a fantasy in your head.

The reason taxes are tied to income is because
that automatically counteracts economic instability
in the private markets. When the private sector stumbles
and falls on its face the tax structure should not pile
taxes onto those who are already down and have lost their
income. That is a recipe for creating depressions.
Conversely when private entities incomes increase their
taxes should also increase so that markets don't form
destabilizing bubbles due to irrational exuberance.

> The way money is created now seems
> to depend on the construction industry,
> and that causes big ups and downs.

What nonsense. If that were true we would be
now in a deep depression.

>
> >>>That's why business
> >>>taxation doesn't make sense, either - business NEVER pays taxes, only
> >>>the customers pay the tax thru higher prices for goods and services
> >>>provided by the business, employees pay the tax thru lower wages, and
> >>>stockholders pay the tax thru diminished dividends from their stocks.
> >>
> >> Business would be much more efficient
> >>and productive if taxes were eliminated,
> >>and it can be done, but a lot of planning
> >>is needed.
> >
> >Yep.
>
> If you think that way, I don't understand
> why you favor a FT.
>
> >> Socialism should be financial only,
> >>with no mandates and no taxes, nothing
> >>forced, then freedom can coexist with
> >>reasonable and adequate social programs.
> >
> >Not grokking that.

He is advocating that govt just credit bank accounts when
it spends for programs like Social Security without
a balancing drain on deposits of borrowing or taxing. The
current system of govt spending leaves the total amount of
bank deposits unchanged. His system would flood the banking
system with deposits since there would be more added than
removed. The currents system leaves the quantity of bank
deposits unchanged as for each dollar spent there is a dollar
deposit removed by taxing or borrowing.

He claims this will avoid having govt debt.
But it is all foolish nonsense, because all the
trillions in deposits in the banking system become
the liabilities of the govt anyway. And it tosses
accounting out the window. Congress would now be free
to find ways to spend with no way of keeping track.

What is the problem? And don't tell me the
govt debt is too large. You have no problem at
all making the govt liabilities much larger.
You just want the debt to be well hidden, which
is just plain foolish.

> The economic system is by far
> the most efficient, but government
> has loaded itself down with too big
> a burden on the backs of taxpayers.

That is inaccurate.

Taxes are smaller burden to taxpayers now than
they have been at any time since 1950. That makes
good sense. When the private sector is doing poorly, it
should be taxed less. The amount being taken from
taxpayers today is less than in 2007. Taxes are now 15%
of GDP. You have to go back to 1950 to find a time when
taxes were down to 15% of national income.

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:01:05 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
wrote:

>emoneyjoe wrote:
>>
>> But tying federal revenue to sales or
>> GDP causes a stability problem, another
>> way to provide revenue could enhance
>> stability.
>
>You have that backwards.

No, I am right, the world is wrong, my
Dad said so. :-).

Many things that are being done,
and what were done, are/were backwards,
even medical science, like soaking a
sprained ankle in warm or tepid water.

>There is no stability problem
>with govt running a deficit. Its a fantasy in your head.

You have a comprehension problem,
I didn't say borrowing had anything to
do with the ups and downs of the
economy, which is where there is
definitely an instability, with down
now being the prominent factor.

>The reason taxes are tied to income is because
>that automatically counteracts economic instability
>in the private markets.

No, it isn't, the reason is that in
the past, the only thing that could
be taxed was man's product, the
early taxes were the actual product,
not money.

>When the private sector stumbles
>and falls on its face the tax structure should not pile
>taxes onto those who are already down and have lost their
>income.

Depends, if they are in the hole,
the IRS still wants taxes owed, if
they have assets in excess of a
million, lost income should not be
that big of a problem.

>That is a recipe for creating depressions.

You must have missed the part
where I said I favor elimination of
all income type taxes.

>Conversely when private entities incomes increase their
>taxes should also increase so that markets don't form
>destabilizing bubbles due to irrational exuberance.

I see, so government wants a
piece of the action? Work harder,
think of better ideas so government
can take more of what you create?

I don't know what markets you
are talking about, the futures market
could totally be done away with for
all speculators and it would be an
improvement.
The stock market other than new
public offerings is really not of much
use to the economy, and is part of
the instability problem.

>> The way money is created now seems
>> to depend on the construction industry,
>> and that causes big ups and downs.
>
>What nonsense. If that were true we would be
>now in a deep depression.

We have been, the large flow of
social program money masks it.

>> >>>That's why business
>> >>>taxation doesn't make sense, either - business NEVER pays taxes, only
>> >>>the customers pay the tax thru higher prices for goods and services
>> >>>provided by the business, employees pay the tax thru lower wages, and
>> >>>stockholders pay the tax thru diminished dividends from their stocks.
>> >>
>> >> Business would be much more efficient
>> >>and productive if taxes were eliminated,
>> >>and it can be done, but a lot of planning
>> >>is needed.
>> >
>> >Yep.
>>
>> If you think that way, I don't understand
>> why you favor a FT.
>>
>> >> Socialism should be financial only,
>> >>with no mandates and no taxes, nothing
>> >>forced, then freedom can coexist with
>> >>reasonable and adequate social programs.
>> >
>> >Not grokking that.
>
>He is advocating that govt just credit bank accounts when
>it spends for programs like Social Security without
>a balancing drain on deposits of borrowing or taxing.

It is the government, stupid.

First, who is it that tells government
it must keep strict accounting of every
penny.

What is more important, a stable,
vibrant economy without any talk of
default, or keeping the bankers and
big money pacified with continued
gifts of taxpayer money?

>The
>current system of govt spending leaves the total amount of
>bank deposits unchanged.

Really, they are the same today
as in 1932?

>His system would flood the banking
>system with deposits since there would be more added than
>removed.

I don't have a system, and have
not proposed a money system, only
an insight into the fact that creation
of money by a sovereign government
no longer need be strictly a percentage
of man's product.

>The currents system leaves the quantity of bank
>deposits unchanged as for each dollar spent there is a dollar
>deposit removed by taxing or borrowing.

Amazing, little banks grow, without
any change in deposits.
A banker's dream, nothing can
take place any place in the nation
without the bankers getting a piece
of the action, while the government
get a piece, and the insurance
companies get a piece.

>He claims this will avoid having govt debt.

The term is "unaffordable debt",
debt that somebody knows how and
when it can be repaid.
A system that suffers from more
than one faults that politicians and
bankers overlook.

The economic system is by far

the best, yet government is going
dump faster than a drunk gambler.

>But it is all foolish nonsense, because all the
>trillions in deposits in the banking system become
>the liabilities of the govt anyway.

Not until the shit hits the fan.

>And it tosses
>accounting out the window.

Not entirely, records should be
kept, and a system of money
destruction needs to be implemented
when any indication of too much
money in circulation in the wrong
places shows up.

>Congress would now be free
>to find ways to spend with no way of keeping track.

Oh, so you are determined to
keep track of congress, and you
aren't even the president or a
justice.

It is as large as it should ever be.

>You have no problem at
>all making the govt liabilities much larger.

Why would government have any
liabilities at all, you are imagining
things.
The federal government took
over the railroad pensions, and
you didn't complain, they took
over the black lung program,
and implemented an insurance
program, and what else that isn't
being objected to?

>You just want the debt to be well hidden, which
>is just plain foolish.

You are imagining things? Does
the idea that congress could make
new rules cutting out forced payments
of taxpayer money to bankers and
big money scare you?

>> The economic system is by far
>> the most efficient, but government
>> has loaded itself down with too big
>> a burden on the backs of taxpayers.
>
>That is inaccurate.

A lot of people feel Taxed Enough
already.

>Taxes are smaller burden to taxpayers now than
>they have been at any time since 1950. That makes
>good sense. When the private sector is doing poorly, it
>should be taxed less. The amount being taken from
>taxpayers today is less than in 2007. Taxes are now 15%
>of GDP. You have to go back to 1950 to find a time when
>taxes were down to 15% of national income.

Taxes should no longer be a piece
of the action, taxes, as a way to destroy
excess money should only touch money
that has become stagnant and no longer
being used for production.

It is obvious that with government
taking money from producers and giving
it to money hoarders, causes a reduction
in money essential to the well being of
the economy.

And at a time when additional costs
are being forced on producers (labor
and business), the tax nuts want a
bigger part of the production.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 23:56:40 -0500, Dave Head <rall...@att.net>
wrote:

>

>Used to be excise taxes, and tariffs. Tariffs are thought to be
>counterproductive now, and that leaves excise taxes, which are
>basically the same consumption tax as the FT.

They're counterproductive to Multinational corporation and outsourcers
who'd rather employee Chinese than Americans.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 23:56:40 -0500, Dave Head <rall...@att.net>
wrote:

>> Earlier today I realized for the first
>>time that the US is productive enough
>>to have the current level of social
>>programs, because they exist, and if
>>it wasn't for oil imports, the US would
>>have a positive trade balance.
>
>Obama is doing his best to keep us dependent on foreign sources, tho.

Another fact free GOPer?
Today's news says the US is on track to become the world's largest
producer of energy. Energy production in the US is up.

The GOP Conservative Entertainment Complex lied to you again. Using
the mustard seed of truth that production went down after the BP Gulf
oil spill while all offshore drilling permits were reviewed. But that
since then there's more than before.

So in October 12 for instance US domestic oil production was at a 17
year high.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/11/us-energy-data-eia-idUSBRE89A11A20121011

the question for you is do you want to wake up or keep spouting the
leis you're fed?

[jim]

emoneyjoe wrote:

>
> You have a comprehension problem,
> I didn't say borrowing had anything to
> do with the ups and downs of the
> economy,

You said that because you are ignorant. Federal
borrowing as everything to with the ups and
downs of the economy.

>
> >That is a recipe for creating depressions.
>
> You must have missed the part
> where I said I favor elimination of
> all income type taxes.

No I didn't miss that. I said that is a recipe
for creating depressions.

> The stock market other than new
> public offerings is really not of much
> use to the economy, and is part of
> the instability problem.

The problem is that income from sale of stocks is
not taxed as heavily as income earned by work.
Income from sale of stock should be taxed more
heavily. Then you would have a stable stock market.

>
> >His system would flood the banking
> >system with deposits since there would be more added than
> >removed.
>
> I don't have a system, and have
> not proposed a money system,

You have proposed a monetary system. You don't
fully understand what you have proposed.

> only
> an insight into the fact that creation
> of money by a sovereign government
> no longer need be strictly a percentage
> of man's product.

If money grows at a rate greater than the rate
of production grows you have inflation.

> Taxes should no longer be a piece
> of the action, taxes, as a way to destroy
> excess money should only touch money
> that has become stagnant and no longer
> being used for production.

That is the general theory behind maintaining
some level of inflation. Currently money sitting
in Treasury notes is getting interest below the rate
of inflation. It is being taxed just as you describe.

>
> It is obvious that with government
> taking money from producers and giving
> it to money hoarders, causes a reduction
> in money essential to the well being of
> the economy.

The govt is taking money from willing lenders
and giving it to you and other SS recipients.
Maybe you are hoarding it - I don't know.

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:23:18 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
wrote:

>emoneyjoe wrote:
>> You have a comprehension problem,
>> I didn't say borrowing had anything to
>> do with the ups and downs of the
>> economy,
>
>You said that because you are ignorant.

That isn't a valid reason.

>Federal
>borrowing as everything to with the ups and
>downs of the economy.

You have it backwards, the economy
may affect borrowing, but federal borrowing
can only hurt the economy in the long run.

>> >That is a recipe for creating depressions.
>>
>> You must have missed the part
>> where I said I favor elimination of
>> all income type taxes.
>
>No I didn't miss that. I said that is a recipe
>for creating depressions.

I am considering all aspects as they
exist now, not some antiquated theory.

Because of so many negative factors,
radical actions are needed, hopefully the
congress will be able to manage it without
causing more loss of freedom and harm
to individuals and the economy.

>> The stock market other than new
>> public offerings is really not of much
>> use to the economy, and is part of
>> the instability problem.
>
>The problem is that income from sale of stocks is
>not taxed as heavily as income earned by work.

And any asset held more than a year
should be taxed at a lower rate, just as
if the gain was averaged for each year.

>Income from sale of stock should be taxed more
>heavily. Then you would have a stable stock market.

Sorry Mr. democrat, the only reason
the market is so volatile is because of
speculation in the hopes of short term
gain, not real investment.

>> >His system would flood the banking
>> >system with deposits since there would be more added than
>> >removed.
>>
>> I don't have a system, and have
>> not proposed a money system,
>
>You have proposed a monetary system. You don't
>fully understand what you have proposed.

Yes I do, and it is only part of a
monetary system, mostly considered
to head off movement toward more
socialism.

Things will never be the same again,
too many social programs poorly planned,
and a lack of demand that can't be made
greater by legislation.

>> only
>> an insight into the fact that creation
>> of money by a sovereign government
>> no longer need be strictly a percentage
>> of man's product.
>
>If money grows at a rate greater than the rate
>of production grows you have inflation.

We have inflation, and there are
things worse than inflation.

While I don't like the idea of more
federal mandates, and expansion of
the COLA laws and a little more of
moderate inflation would be a better
way to beat the Chinese at the money
manipulation game and slave labor
without tariffs or quotas.

Technology is such that demand
now increases production so quickly,
old theories are no longer valid.

>> Taxes should no longer be a piece
>> of the action, taxes, as a way to destroy
>> excess money should only touch money
>> that has become stagnant and no longer
>> being used for production.
>
>That is the general theory behind maintaining
>some level of inflation. Currently money sitting
>in Treasury notes is getting interest below the rate
>of inflation. It is being taxed just as you describe.

The public is getting sick of more
taxes and big money taking more interest,
new ideas can fix that without taking away
freedom, or causing conflict.

Production and innovation can increase
the standard of living even more, even
though as it increases, there is less
possible to increase it.

If government were free to create
emoney to fund the poorly planned
social programs and the lack of any
inflation correcting features in them,
industry and business could function
more efficiently and enthusiastically.

>> It is obvious that with government
>> taking money from producers and giving
>> it to money hoarders, causes a reduction
>> in money essential to the well being of
>> the economy.
>
>The govt is taking money from willing lenders
>and giving it to you and other SS recipients.

That is a rotten law, and you know it,
government may borrow to replace the
trust fund it already spent, but FICA taxes
now just about exactly cover the pay out.

>Maybe you are hoarding it - I don't know.

Not a chance, I estimate my benefits
from all sources to be the equivalent of
$30,000 for a single man under 65.

And I am just barely able to get by
with only a $290 mortgage and a little
revolving debt.

That reality must really hurt young
people thinking about the future.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> The government has you on a treadmill that keeps you working so you can
> endlessly pay the tax on money you really didn't need in the first
> place.

Are you stating a theory that the more people are taxed
the harder they tend to work?

[jim]

emoneyjoe wrote:

>
> Don't use the word "print", paper floating
> around causes a problem, people are always
> trying to get rid of it, while money in an account
> is never a problem.

Are you proposing a law that says people can't
withdraw cash from their bank accounts?

>
> >The more they waste or "print" then the less your money in your pocket
> >and bank account are worth and the more a loaf of bread and a gallon of
> >gas will cost. It is a totally hidden Value Added Tax (VAT) tax.
>
> That is a popular theory and apparently
> your opinion, but it obviously is not true.

How would you know? The US govt has never just created money
and transferred it to private sector entities with no strings
attached. The govt has never diluted the deposit money in the
banking system or diluted the money in your wallet. You have
no factual basis for knowing what would happen if they did.

>
> Look, the social programs in place would
> be difficult to end, so a rational way to fund
> them is needed.

What is not rational about the current method?

> Creating emoney on a temporary basis
> is the only way that can be done without
> borrowing.

Why would that be more rational?

>
> It doesn't have to be that way now,
> a machine can do the work of hundreds
> of men, we need a congress that can
> think and take advantage of that fact.

We've had Congress taking advantage of that
fact for 150 years.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

NO, just that the tax structure is set up so that the more you work the
more tax you pay and so working more only gets you more work. It
doesn't get you more money or more freedom.

[jim]

emoneyjoe wrote:

>
> You have it backwards, the economy
> may affect borrowing, but federal borrowing
> can only hurt the economy in the long run.
>

I'll ask one more time.
Why does it hurt the economy?

>
> >Income from sale of stock should be taxed more
> >heavily. Then you would have a stable stock market.
>
> Sorry Mr. democrat, the only reason
> the market is so volatile is because of
> speculation in the hopes of short term
> gain, not real investment.

Low capital gains rewards Ponzi financing and
penalizes real investment. Real investment is the
creation and ownership of productive enterprisess.
Capital gains are income from the liquidation of
investments.
Favorable tax treatment for capital gains gives the
markets an incentive to liquidate productive
enterprises rather than striving to earn from
their production.

>
>
> >> >His system would flood the banking
> >> >system with deposits since there would be more added than
> >> >removed.
> >>
> >> I don't have a system, and have
> >> not proposed a money system,
> >
> >You have proposed a monetary system. You don't
> >fully understand what you have proposed.
>
> Yes I do, and it is only part of a
> monetary system, mostly considered
> to head off movement toward more
> socialism.

That makes no sense, because your plan is socialism.
It is the govt takeover of finance.

>
> Things will never be the same again,
> too many social programs poorly planned,
> and a lack of demand that can't be made
> greater by legislation.

You're the one proposing demand be made greater by
legislation.


>

> Technology is such that demand
> now increases production so quickly,
> old theories are no longer valid.

What happened to nothing new is being invented?

>
> The public is getting sick of more
> taxes and big money taking more interest,

That would be because the public and you are
misinformed. Big money is taking less
interest than ever before and taxes are lower
than anytime in the last 60 years.

> new ideas can fix that without taking away
> freedom, or causing conflict.

You haven't come up with any new ideas.
You are promoting an very old idea.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/13/2012 11:41 AM, jim wrote:
>
> emoneyjoe wrote:
>
>> You have it backwards, the economy
>> may affect borrowing, but federal borrowing
>> can only hurt the economy in the long run.
>>
> I'll ask one more time.
> Why does it hurt the economy?
>
>
>
>>> Income from sale of stock should be taxed more
>>> heavily. Then you would have a stable stock market.
>> Sorry Mr. democrat, the only reason
>> the market is so volatile is because of
>> speculation in the hopes of short term
>> gain, not real investment.
>
> Low capital gains rewards Ponzi financing and
> penalizes real investment. Real investment is the
> creation and ownership of productive enterprisess.
> Capital gains are income from the liquidation of
> investments.
> Favorable tax treatment for capital gains gives the
> markets an incentive to liquidate productive
> enterprises rather than striving to earn from
> their production.
>
>

Finally an interesting post from Jim....

First explain what "LOW CAPITAL GAINS" is, and what "REAL INVESTMENT" is.

This idea that liquidating productive enterprises is necessarily bad is
a bit strange.

And some businesses need to be liquidated like buggy whip factories and
buggy whip investments.

[jim]

Sorry, that was short for "low capital gains taxes"

> and what "REAL INVESTMENT" is.

I gave a definition.

>
> This idea that liquidating productive enterprises is necessarily bad is
> a bit strange.

I didn't say it was bad. I said the markets should not be
distorted by a tax structure that taxes income from the liquidation
of a productive enterprise lower than the actual income from
production.

[jim]

You must have been poor all your life and never
paid any income tax. As you make more money the
tax structure does not take it all. It has no effect on
freedom, one way or the other.

[emoneyjoe]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:50:41 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
wrote:

>emoneyjoe wrote:
>>
>> Don't use the word "print", paper floating
>> around causes a problem, people are always
>> trying to get rid of it, while money in an account
>> is never a problem.
>
>Are you proposing a law that says people can't
>withdraw cash from their bank accounts?

Sorry you missed it, while I love numismatics,
the illegal bunch are able to get away with so
much with the use of paper currency, I would
support doing away with paper currency, so
yes, do away with cash, no more paper currency,
make all transactions electronically, forever
available for examination

Counting drug sales and other hidden
activity, at least a third of taxes due are
evaded, illegal, but that doesn't seem
to stop the illegal activity, or the evasion
of taxes on it.

Don't confuse this with legal avoidance.

>> >The more they waste or "print" then the less your money in your pocket
>> >and bank account are worth and the more a loaf of bread and a gallon of
>> >gas will cost. It is a totally hidden Value Added Tax (VAT) tax.
>>
>> That is a popular theory and apparently
>> your opinion, but it obviously is not true.
>
>How would you know? The US govt has never just created money
>and transferred it to private sector entities with no strings
>attached. The govt has never diluted the deposit money in the
>banking system or diluted the money in your wallet. You have
>no factual basis for knowing what would happen if they did.

There is no difference between borrowing
from overseas and creating interest free emoney
that never has to be paid back, except borrowed
money collects interest, and has to be paid back.

I haven't tried to see if Lincoln's greenbacks
caused inflation, or the King that issued chits,
but I see the advantages of government being
able to pay bills even when big problems that
may not have a resolution happen.

My remarks about a VAT or FT are different
from a complete monetary system that would
assure enough grease for the wheels of the
economy at the right places, along with a
means to destruct emoney where it is not
being circulated.

>> Look, the social programs in place would
>> be difficult to end, so a rational way to fund
>> them is needed.
>
>What is not rational about the current method?

China will get tired of paying part of them.

>> Creating emoney on a temporary basis
>> is the only way that can be done without
>> borrowing.
>
>Why would that be more rational?

Wait till the tax revenue drops below
50 percent of federal spending.

>> It doesn't have to be that way now,
>> a machine can do the work of hundreds
>> of men, we need a congress that can
>> think and take advantage of that fact.
>
>We've had Congress taking advantage of that
>fact for 150 years.

No, they haven't, they have put programs
in place that obviously would run out of funds
due to even minimal inflation.

And they did not foresee the problems
associated with the abortions, with the media
and the government renaming that problem
a "baby boom" problem instead of what it
was, a birth control and abortion problem,
or a live birth major anomaly.


When I think of all the programs that
have been canceled, and all the programs
that could be funded without taxing the
public or borrowing the money, I get very
depressed.
We are now into the future, using
1800s monetary and taxation ideas,
with half the population violating tax
laws in some way.

Laws should be written so there is
no possibility of violation, and no penalties
needed, the object should not be to
punish people, but to make laws that
either are followed willingly by all, or
that have no possibility of violation.
Federal creation of interest free
emoney that never has to be paid
back instead of income type taxes
would go a long way in that regard.


The entire money system would
need other factors decided on, the
basic idea is to make it work again,
without the threat of prison time.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

OK... this looks like something I would post.

If you stop here then the idea that taxes and regulation distort the
economy then wouldn't less taxes and less regulation make for a smoother
and more rational economy?

> from the liquidation
> of a productive enterprise lower than the actual income from
> production.

Again, this is why taxes and regulations are not the cure, they are the
problem. If there was a BIG RED BUTTON in a control room in a nuclear
plant with NO label.... would you press it?

You have no clue what it does and the same goes for all the regulations
and taxes you want to force onto us.


--
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair
salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to
wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we
are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
--Adolf Hitler-- (Speech of May 1, 1927




*Rumination*
#48 - Academia and education is where Socialists can live in their
theoretic bubble and imagine they have ascended to their Utopia.

[emoneyjoe]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:41:54 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
wrote:

>emoneyjoe wrote:
>>
>> You have it backwards, the economy
>> may affect borrowing, but federal borrowing
>> can only hurt the economy in the long run.
>>
>
>I'll ask one more time.
> Why does it hurt the economy?

I am assuming US federal debt has
to be paid back some day on the back
of the taxpayers, meaning money that
is borrowed today is less money for
the public to spend in the future.

>> >Income from sale of stock should be taxed more
>> >heavily. Then you would have a stable stock market.
>>
>> Sorry Mr. democrat, the only reason
>> the market is so volatile is because of
>> speculation in the hopes of short term
>> gain, not real investment.
>
>
>Low capital gains rewards Ponzi financing and
>penalizes real investment. Real investment is the
>creation and ownership of productive enterprisess.

You are trying to drive a team of
horses without reins, stock and asset
owners can control their tax rates by
taking action in certain years instead
of all in a single year.
That is what capital gains is meant
to do, just a simple way to spread the
tax over the years of the investment.

>Capital gains are income from the liquidation of
>investments.

Or losses. I thought somebody
made it pretty clear that in the past,
government tried to change capital
gains law to generate more revenue,
and there was less.

>Favorable tax treatment for capital gains gives the
>markets an incentive to liquidate productive
>enterprises rather than striving to earn from
>their production.

A rather foolish act.

>> >> >His system would flood the banking
>> >> >system with deposits since there would be more added than
>> >> >removed.
>> >>
>> >> I don't have a system, and have
>> >> not proposed a money system,
>> >
>> >You have proposed a monetary system. You don't
>> >fully understand what you have proposed.
>>
>> Yes I do, and it is only part of a
>> monetary system, mostly considered
>> to head off movement toward more
>> socialism.
>
>That makes no sense, because your plan is socialism.
>It is the govt takeover of finance.

No it is not, the Fed can still do
what it does with the exception of
just forgetting the worthless QE
nonsense that only helps big money
and bankers.
And the banks can continue without
any change.

>> Things will never be the same again,
>> too many social programs poorly planned,
>> and a lack of demand that can't be made
>> greater by legislation.
>
>You're the one proposing demand be made greater by
>legislation.

No, only that the monetary system
be updated in a way that takes all
current factors in consideration.

There are definitely projects that
require federal funding, and there is
certain to be a long term problem
with less jobs, and a resulting short-
fall in federal tax revenue.

Does congress have the brains
to take those facts and do something
about them, or repeat the mistakes
of the 1930s, higher taxes, new taxes
(FICA), and less spending.

>> Technology is such that demand
>> now increases production so quickly,
>> old theories are no longer valid.
>
>What happened to nothing new is being invented?

Other things besides new products
can cause demand.

>> The public is getting sick of more
>> taxes and big money taking more interest,
>
>That would be because the public and you are
>misinformed. Big money is taking less
>interest than ever before and taxes are lower
>than anytime in the last 60 years.

Really? For who? Do you know
what the interest rate is that GE Money
charges?

Taxes go up when there is inflation
even if the rates stay the same.

The reason the federal tax revenue
is less is because less people are able
to earn as much as before, and a much
bigger part of economic activity is under
the table.

I think the part due to less jobs that
involves manufactured imports is not great
compared to the under the table action.

>> new ideas can fix that without taking away
>> freedom, or causing conflict.
>
>You haven't come up with any new ideas.
>You are promoting an very old idea.

New or not, it wasn't possible when
all manufacturing was done by hand.

And the big change in labor needed
in agriculture has a bearing because it
leaves so many more people needing
some other way to earn a living.
Electric money has only become
the most used method of sales
transactions within the last 10 years.
I rarely ever go to the bank for
currency any more, and all of a
sudden I have two credit cards
that offer cash with each purchase,
which I think provides a small cash
loan with no interest if the account
is paid in full each month.

Online purchases and electronic
payments are increasing, and the
need for paper currency is less for
everybody but the drug trade, thieves,
and prostitutes.


Times change, and it is time to
examine the monetary system before
the leftists try to change the economic
system, unfortunately there are people
so dumb as to think some other system
could be better than private enterprise.


A monetary system is supposed
to provide certain benefits, with core
objectives that include ease of use,
availability in immediate need, speed
of circulation, and low cost.

Government is complaining about
cost, even the mint may have trouble
making money, and electronic money
only costs a few pennies per million
for keyboard entry.

With new mobile devices and
plastic, ease of use could not be
better, everybody now carries plastic
or a mobile device, and nothing can
be faster circulating.
I can sell something online, and
spend the money a thousand miles
away in the next minute, allowing
the same money to circulate many
times a day, far more than any other
type of money, making possible more
federal tax revenue.


The claim that the amount of
emoney in accounts can cause any
inflation at all is delusional, government
funding social programs with keyboard
created emoney would not cause any
inflation at all.

The left is complaining about the
rich accumulating more and more
money, that is true, and is a result of
money not continuing in the same
pathway.
If the federal government were to
make all social program pay outs with
newly created emoney, then the
emoney in that pathway would be
much more constant.
And a way to remove money from
the top would not have the same
objections because it would not
affect the economy as claimed now.

[jim]

It's not even close to what you post.

>
> If you stop here then the idea that taxes and regulation distort the
> economy then wouldn't less taxes and less regulation make for a smoother
> and more rational economy?

Nope as usual you are 100% wrong. Taxes and regulations are
just part of the landscape. If the landscape is flat it does
not distort.

When the tax code treats the income from inflating assets
more favorably than income from actual production then the
landscape is not level and the markets gravitate towards
inflating assets rather than actual production.

>
> > from the liquidation
> > of a productive enterprise lower than the actual income from
> > production.
>
> Again, this is why taxes and regulations are not the cure, they are the
> problem. If there was a BIG RED BUTTON in a control room in a nuclear
> plant with NO label.... would you press it?

You seem to be totally ignorant in a vast number of fields.

[jim]

emoneyjoe wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:41:54 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
> wrote:
>
> >emoneyjoe wrote:
> >>
> >> You have it backwards, the economy
> >> may affect borrowing, but federal borrowing
> >> can only hurt the economy in the long run.
> >>
> >
> >I'll ask one more time.
> > Why does it hurt the economy?
>
> I am assuming US federal debt has
> to be paid back some day on the back
> of the taxpayers,

That's an incorrect assumption.

It's like saying you expect the bankers will
someday have to give the depositors all their money
and because you know that is impossible you declare
that the banks are all bankrupt.

> meaning money that
> is borrowed today is less money for
> the public to spend in the future.

That is a bogus assumption.

Nothing about government debt requires that it be
paid down. It never has been and it never will.
Of course individual Treasury securities will be
redeemed when they mature. But the Treasury
will roll over its maturing debt indefinitely.
Rolling over means selling new securities to pay for
the redemption of maturing securities. This requires
no new tax revenues.

> >
> >You're the one proposing demand be made greater by
> >legislation.
>
> No, only that the monetary system
> be updated in a way that takes all
> current factors in consideration.

How will that be done without legislation?

>
> >> The public is getting sick of more
> >> taxes and big money taking more interest,
> >
> >That would be because the public and you are
> >misinformed. Big money is taking less
> >interest than ever before and taxes are lower
> >than anytime in the last 60 years.
>
> Really? For who? Do you know
> what the interest rate is that GE Money
> charges?

I thought you were whining about the interest the
govt is paying.

Are you now going to extend your socialism to
dictating to GE how much interest they can charge?