OT: Taxes
Robert Baer
It's Almost Too Late to Escape Pelosi's New Year's Eve Tax Trap
By David Galland, Managing Director, Casey Research
The administration knows its massive deficits will be poison come the
November 2010 midterm elections. At the same time, it also knows if it
cuts stimulus spending, it risks kicking the props out from under the
recovery just ahead of those same elections.
There's only one way out. That's to boost revenues... and soon. It would
be political suicide for Obama to break his pledge not to raise taxes on
the middle class. So all that's left is to mug the "wealthy."
It's already a given that taxes are going up for higher income earners
and investors. Most importantly, the administration and its
Congressional allies have announced they'll allow the Bush tax cuts to
expire in 2011. Those cuts, passed in 2001 and 2003, reduced personal
income taxes and capital gains taxes, as well as eliminated the estate tax.
Once the Bush tax cuts expire, high earners will see their personal
income taxes rise from 35% to 39.6%. (And probably go up from there. The
House health care bill includes an additional 5.4% surtax on gross
income for high-income individuals.) In addition, the estate tax will
return.
And long-term capital gains tax rates, now at 15%, will be boosted to as
much as 28%.
But here's the rub: Ahead of the 2011 tax changes, investors will begin
dumping appreciated stocks in order to lock in capital gains and avoid
paying the additional taxes. That will create an unwelcome stock market
selloff ahead of the November 2010 elections.
The Democrats knows this, which is why � behind the scenes � they are
now setting a bulletproof tax trap to spring soon after the New Year
begins. The trap is simplicity itself: a repeal of the Bush tax cuts in
2010, a year ahead of schedule.
Further, when passed, the legislation will be retroactive to January 1,
2010.
It's the perfect trap, because once the higher taxes are in place, there
will be no tax incentive for anyone to divest their shares. In fact,
many people will decide to hang on to their stocks until a more
investor-friendly regime returns to power.
By increasing taxes across the board on the wealthy a year ahead of
schedule, the government gets a big lift in revenue. Simultaneously, it
avoids a rush for the exits that would otherwise occur ahead of the
capital gains tax increases. For the government, it's a win-win. Very
much not the case for investors.
Could the government really pull this off � implementing a retroactive
tax increase?
In a word, yes. Back in August 1993, President Clinton passed the
largest tax increase in history � the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1993 (OBRA) � and made it retroactive to January of that year.
It was challenged in court, and the court held that retroactive tax
increases were legal. This was not the first time this sort of chicanery
had been pulled. (You can read more on the topic of retroactive taxes by
clicking here.)
Why am I so confident this trap is being set? Nancy Pelosi herself
tipped her hand on the retroactive tax plan when she said last January
she wanted Congress to repeal Bush's tax cuts well before their
scheduled expiration date. An early repeal of the Bush tax cuts was also
one of President Obama's campaign promises.
The administration and its allies have since gone quiet on its
intentions. But that's only because they want to avoid triggering a
stock selloff before the end of 2009. That all changes once the ball
drops in Times Square this coming New Year's Eve. At that point, it will
be too late to escape.
The good news is that avoiding this trap is as easy as selling your most
profitable stock positions on or before December 31, 2009. This way,
you'll only pay 15% on your long-term capital gains... instead of the
28% the government is planning to sting you with once its tax trap is
sprung in 2010.
You've been warned.
Good investing,
David Galland
John Larkin
>The Democrats knows this, which is why � behind the scenes � they are
>now setting a bulletproof tax trap to spring soon after the New Year
>begins. The trap is simplicity itself: a repeal of the Bush tax cuts in
>2010, a year ahead of schedule.
>
>Further, when passed, the legislation will be retroactive to January 1,
>2010.
>
>It's the perfect trap, because once the higher taxes are in place, there
>will be no tax incentive for anyone to divest their shares. In fact,
>many people will decide to hang on to their stocks until a more
>investor-friendly regime returns to power.
>
>By increasing taxes across the board on the wealthy a year ahead of
>schedule, the government gets a big lift in revenue. Simultaneously, it
>avoids a rush for the exits that would otherwise occur ahead of the
>capital gains tax increases. For the government, it's a win-win. Very
>much not the case for investors.
____________________________________
|
|
|
|
Tax rate-------------
___
| \___
| \__
| \__
| \__
Tax revenue ---------- \__
\__
\__
\_________
======> time =====>
It's hard to get sociology majors to understand complicated dynamics
like this.
John
krw
+- No jump here
|
V___
> | \___
> | \__
> | \__
> | \__
>Tax revenue ---------- \__
> \__
> \__
> \_________
> ======> time =====>
>
>
>It's hard to get sociology majors to understand complicated dynamics
>like this.
They don't care. It's not about revenue. It a matter of not allowing
others to keep what's theirs. The poor don't like the rich and the
rich don't like the new rich. "They're easier to control if they're
kept down on the farm".
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> **copy**
> Could the government really pull this off – implementing a retroactive
> tax increase?
>
> In a word, yes. Back in August 1993, President Clinton passed the
> largest tax increase in history – the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
> of 1993 (OBRA) – and made it retroactive to January of that year.
>
> It was challenged in court, and the court held that retroactive tax
> increases were legal. This was not the first time this sort of chicanery
> had been pulled. (You can read more on the topic of retroactive taxes by
> clicking here.)
Robert, could you give that link?
Under the section describing Congress, the Constitution says:
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
--Article I. Section 9, U.S. Constitution
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
I'm curious how they justify passing a law ex post facto.
I guess that's the beauty of a living, breathing document--it lets you
do whatever you want. Like jail opponents.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Bill Sloman
There's nothing complicated about the Laffer Curve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
but proponents of tax cuts who have cited the laffer Curve have found
that their tax cuts have lost them revenue. It does seem to be a
little more difficult to predict where the maximum of the Laffer curve
is actually located, and Bush and Regan both got it wrong.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Regan and Bush both lost revenue by cutting taxes rates and claiming
to hope that the Laffer Curve would compensate for the immediate loss
of the tax income.
So presumably it wasn't about revenue there either, but about giving
the right-wing rich more money to bestow on Republican election
campaigns.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
don
> On Nov 21, 3:37 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
>> **copy**
>
>> tax increase?
>>
>> In a word, yes. Back in August 1993, President Clinton passed the
>> of 1993 (OBRA) � and made it retroactive to January of that year.
>>
>> It was challenged in court, and the court held that retroactive tax
>> increases were legal. This was not the first time this sort of chicanery
>> had been pulled. (You can read more on the topic of retroactive taxes by
>> clicking here.)
>
> Robert, could you give that link?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/HL613.cfm
John Larkin
There is a complicating factor: time. Of course a tax increase will
spike revenue, and a tax cut will reduce revenue in the near term. But
it takes a while, years or decades, for businesses to adjust to tax
increases. Businesses react to cost increases by exporting labor, by
reducing investment, or by just going out of business. They react to
tax cuts by producting more stuff, hiring, and surviving.
The combination of taxes and unions have slowly but surely destroyed
the domestic steel, shipbuilding, furniture, appliance, toy, tool,
camera, calculator, hardware, computer, and consumer electronics
businesses, and much of the auto industry.
John
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:31:25 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
Curious that the higher taxes and more powerful unions in Europe
haven't had the same destructive effect.
You are perhaps neglecting the destructive effect of insufficient
investment in the education of the workers available to be hired by
these firms, the consequences of an inadequate - in the sense of less
than universal - health care system, and the general under-investment
in community infra-structure that follows from setting the tax rate
too low.
As I siad, if you feel that you are being over-taxed in California,
you should relocate to a place with lower taxes - Somalia comes to
mind - and grow rich there.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 3:37 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >> **copy**
>
> >> tax increase?
>
> >> In a word, yes. Back in August 1993, President Clinton passed the
> >> of 1993 (OBRA) – and made it retroactive to January of that year.
>
> >> It was challenged in court, and the court held that retroactive tax
> >> increases were legal. This was not the first time this sort of chicanery
> >> had been pulled. (You can read more on the topic of retroactive taxes by
> >> clicking here.)
>
> > Robert, could you give that link?
>
> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/HL613.cfm
>
>
>
> > Under the section describing Congress, the Constitution says:
>
> > "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
> > --Article I. Section 9, U.S. Constitution
>
> >http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
>
> > I'm curious how they justify passing a law ex post facto.
>
> > I guess that's the beauty of a living, breathing document--it lets you
> > do whatever you want. Like jail opponents.
(e.g., for not paying their health care tax)
Thanks Don.
That article described several cases of retroactive tax increase,
which led me to several Supreme Court decisions upholding them.
Anyone who owns taxable businesses or property will want to read this
1rst case:
United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26 (1994)
http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-v-carlton
The executor of an estate purchased and sold stock at a loss to an
Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP), to reap a legal tax benefit under
the law for the estate he represented. A year later, a Democratic
Congress changed the law so that the stockholder must have purchased
the stock during his/her life to reap the deduction, and made that
retroactive. The estate was therefore in violation of the modified
law, and owed a bunch more tax.
The Supreme Court said, essentially, that Congress was just correcting
the law to its original intent to prevent what was essentially a "sham
transaction(s)," which was not unconstitutional. And, further, that a
little bit of retroactivity is allowable and necessary--even
unavoidable in tax measures.
Blackmun said the fact that the executor relied on the published tax
laws for guidance "is insufficient to establish a constitutional
violation. _Tax legislation is not a promise, and a taxpayer has no
vested right in the Internal Revenue Code._" (emphasis added)
In United States v. Darusmont, 449 U.S. 292 (1981)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/449/292/case.html
a couple sold their house (a triplex)--to relocate for a new job--
after carefully consulting with their tax guys to sell in a way
minimizing their tax. Congress changed the law later that year, and
the IRS came after them for more tax.
The homeowners argued that tax change was a violation of their due
process rights under the 5th Amendment; the justices said no, because
the issue had been under discussion for a year prior, so the
homeowners should've known. Further, the Court said changing the tax
rate of an existing law was not the same as enacting a new /ex post
facto/ law.
As usual, this crap started under FDR. Since FDR's in vogue again,
business owners beware.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
John Larkin
Europe has certainly lost most of its semiconductor, consumer
electronics, shipbuilding, camera, and computer industries. I don't
know about the others... maybe someone can comment.
>
>You are perhaps neglecting the destructive effect of insufficient
>investment in the education of the workers available to be hired by
>these firms, the consequences of an inadequate - in the sense of less
>than universal - health care system, and the general under-investment
>in community infra-structure that follows from setting the tax rate
>too low.
At present, there are too many educated workers and too few jobs for
them. Taxing businesses to pay for education makes that imbalance
worse. Most of The Brat's Cornell classmates are unemployed or grossly
underemployed; their educations aren't helping much.
Your education doesn't seem to be helping you find something useful to
do.
I don't see how inadequate infrastructure is a serious impedimant to
job creation. There's plenty of industrial space available, for free
in many places, and the occasional pothole is no big deal. It's not as
if the important stuff is crumbling to the ground, or there are
militias driving jeeps around and shooting the place up.
>
>As I siad, if you feel that you are being over-taxed in California,
>you should relocate to a place with lower taxes - Somalia comes to
>mind - and grow rich there.
I'm doing fine. I like it here and, most likely, the real estate we're
buying will be the ultimate longterm payoff. We can and do survive in
California. But California is, as someone noted, a "fine-tuned job
killing machine." I employ superb engineers and managers and
production people, and we make and sell high-performance,
premium-priced products. But the real problem is the "worker-guy"
manufacturing and service jobs which are increasingly exported to
low-labor-cost countries. This is producing an increasing schism
between the high-paid technical/academic/medical/business types and
the unemployed "working class" who can't compete with offshore or
immigrant labor. That is what mostly concerns me.
I've been told first-hand about life in Denmark, where the native
population is doing well but most of the
construction/painting/plumbing sorts of jobs are going to questionally
legal immigrants, a new underclass.
I have a friend who started a business in France. He has no formal
employees because it's just too difficult and expensive to start a
business and hire people there. I got involved with a British company
that I thought was sincere about developing a technology. What they
were actually sincere about was a public floatation, the 20M pounds of
which was immediately used not for technology development but to
purchase the family stock.
The US is, as usual, just a bit ahead of the curve.
John
ChrisQ
>
> The combination of taxes and unions have slowly but surely destroyed
> the domestic steel, shipbuilding, furniture, appliance, toy, tool,
> camera, calculator, hardware, computer, and consumer electronics
> businesses, and much of the auto industry.
>
Tax is not the real issue. Labour is the biggest cost for many
traditional industries and we cannot compete with the labour costs of
the third world, china, india etc. These countries have a low average
standard of living in many cases and they drive their workers very hard.
They don't pay them too much either, not much better than sweatshop
rates. Even with all the shipping, it's still cheaper than we could
build it here. Yet, our wonderfull globalised multinationals have no
problem with dealing with these people, exporting jobs from the us and
europe just to make that little bit more greedy, sleazy bottom line. I
don't think they really cae whether the us sinks or swims in many cases.
If you want to revitalise the manufacturing industries of the west,
start by reigning in the business practices of these companies and wake
up to what the final outcome will be if we don't.
The other point is the effect all this has on the shift in the balance
of power from the west to the east. What do you think is fuelling the
growth in china, for example ?. It's said that they will overtake the us
in a few years. Doesn't anyone care about this ?...
Regards,
Chris
John Larkin
>John Larkin wrote:
>
>>
>> The combination of taxes and unions have slowly but surely destroyed
>> the domestic steel, shipbuilding, furniture, appliance, toy, tool,
>> camera, calculator, hardware, computer, and consumer electronics
>> businesses, and much of the auto industry.
>>
>
>Tax is not the real issue. Labour is the biggest cost for many
>traditional industries and we cannot compete with the labour costs of
>the third world, china, india etc. These countries have a low average
>standard of living in many cases and they drive their workers very hard.
>They don't pay them too much either, not much better than sweatshop
>rates. Even with all the shipping, it's still cheaper than we could
>build it here. Yet, our wonderfull globalised multinationals have no
>problem with dealing with these people, exporting jobs from the us and
>europe just to make that little bit more greedy, sleazy bottom line. I
>don't think they really cae whether the us sinks or swims in many cases.
>If you want to revitalise the manufacturing industries of the west,
>start by reigning in the business practices of these companies and wake
>up to what the final outcome will be if we don't.
Businesses have to compete or die. No single business can elect to
retain high-priced union labor, and pay all the associated payroll and
unemployment and workers' comp taxes and income taxes and medical
costs when its competitors are buying Chinese stuff and rebranding it.
And the companies can't all agree to use domestic labor because such
collusion is illegal.
By "reigning in business practices" you must mean trade barriers. They
are mostly illegal by international treaty.
Do you always buy US-made products, even when they cost a lot more
than imports? Are all your cars and appliances and tools US made?
If more domestic taxation was shifted to sales tax, including taxes on
services, and less were heaped on employers, we'd have more domestic
jobs.
>
>The other point is the effect all this has on the shift in the balance
>of power from the west to the east. What do you think is fuelling the
>growth in china, for example ?. It's said that they will overtake the us
>in a few years. Doesn't anyone care about this ?...
What do you mean by "overtake" ? Should the rest of the world stay
poor and uneducated and hungry so we can still be NumbahOne?
John
ChrisQ
>
> By "reigning in business practices" you must mean trade barriers. They
> are mostly illegal by international treaty.
>
Not trade barriers or protectionism and have no problem with
competition. It improves the breed :-). However, the current disparity
between the labour costs between the west and east means that there is
no chance of competing in many areas of manufacturing at all, where
labour costs dominate. It's not enough to say that we win in design, or
high tech skills, because the rest of the world is catching up fast in
that area as well. There will be nothing left for the west to trade with
eventually, so what happens then ?.
As you imply, the real problem is what to do to keep employed all the
mid to low skill part of the population that have had their work
exported. They are a majority, btw, so it's not a trivial problem to
solve long term. High tech workers are only a small proportion of the
total population.
>
> Do you always buy US-made products, even when they cost a lot more
> than imports? Are all your cars and appliances and tools US made?
>
I live in the England, but yes, I do try to buy uk or european made
stuff where possible and yes, even if it costs more, but only if it's
better design and quality. We should be capable of competing in that
area at least. In many cases, you have no choice anyway, because nearly
everything seems to be made in the far east, even where it doesn't say
so. It can be difficult to find stuff that's actually made locally.
>
> What do you mean by "overtake" ? Should the rest of the world stay
> poor and uneducated and hungry so we can still be NumbahOne?
>
> John
>
No, A more equitable distribution of living standards would be a great
thing for humanity, as would education so that they might see through
the lies of politics. Ideally, it should be dependent on a background of
democracy, not what exists in some of the countries that we seem all too
ready to do business with. Remember, countries like China are not a
democracy, but a police state. In any reasonable scenario, we shouldn't
even be doing business with them, never mind handing over our
manufacturing industry lock, stock and barrel. With the Chinese currency
being held artificially low to give them a competitive advantage and the
us national debt to China accelerating at an ever increasing rate,
what's likely to be the result for the us ?. You may not be worried by
this, but I definately am.
I know i'm not explaining this very well and don't have any simple
answers, but I see a western civilisation in decline, quite happy to
feed undemocratic regimes just so the party of cheap goods from cheap
labour can continue. We are just sowing the seeds of our own demise,
long term...
Regards,
Chris
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:53:50 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
This has more to do with folly of your undercontrolled banking system.
You do seem to have noticed that the US house price bubble burst a
year or so ago, but you want to blame the consequent contraction of
the economy on over-hgih tax rates?
> Your education doesn't seem to be helping you find something useful to
> do.
Being 66 in the Nehterlands doesn't help.
> I don't see how inadequate infrastructure is a serious impedimant to
> job creation. There's plenty of industrial space available, for free
> in many places, and the occasional pothole is no big deal. It's not as
> if the important stuff is crumbling to the ground, or there are
> militias driving jeeps around and shooting the place up.
Read Gailbraith on private affluence and public squalor, in his 1958
book, the Affluent Society.
> >As I said, if you feel that you are being over-taxed in California,
> >you should relocate to a place with lower taxes - Somalia comes to
> >mind - and grow rich there.
>
> I'm doing fine. I like it here and, most likely, the real estate we're
> buying will be the ultimate longterm payoff. We can and do survive in
> California. But California is, as someone noted, a "fine-tuned job
> killing machine." I employ superb engineers and managers and
> production people, and we make and sell high-performance,
> premium-priced products. But the real problem is the "worker-guy"
> manufacturing and service jobs which are increasingly exported to
> low-labor-cost countries. This is producing an increasing schism
> between the high-paid technical/academic/medical/business types and
> the unemployed "working class" who can't compete with offshore or
> immigrant labor. That is what mostly concerns me.
And your concern leads you to support the party that wants the
"working class" to sicker, more poorly paid and less well educated.
Interesting reasoning, if one can dignify the though processes
involved wit that term.
> I've been told first-hand about life in Denmark, where the native
> population is doing well but most of the
> construction/painting/plumbing sorts of jobs are going to questionally
> legal immigrants, a new underclass.
Demark is a member of the European Community, so the Polish migrant
workers are perfectly legal, and making quite a bit more money than
they would in Poland. Ireland has been in the European community a bit
longer and the Irish economy has improved to the point where the Irish
aren't as enthusiastic about working away from home as they used to
be.
> I have a friend who started a business in France. He has no formal
> employees because it's just too difficult and expensive to start a
> business and hire people there.
It wouldn't be if the business got big enough to need formal
employees.
> I got involved with a British company
> that I thought was sincere about developing a technology. What they
> were actually sincere about was a public floatation, the 20M pounds of
> which was immediately used not for technology development but to
> purchase the family stock.
Fraud is international.
> The US is, as usual, just a bit ahead of the curve.
In fact it is quite a bit behind the curve, but no American will
believe this.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> This has more to do with folly of your undercontrolled banking system.
> You do seem to have noticed that the US house price bubble burst a
> year or so ago, but you want to blame the consequent contraction of
> the economy on over-hgih tax rates?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap_on_bi_ge/us_unemployment_taxes
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
John Larkin
Behind the very public volatility of "markets", namely the buying and
selling of things for their speculative value, and the purchase of
stuff on credit, I think there has been a 20-year or so hollowing out
of the real worker-level productivity of this country, which has been
behind the scenes and largely ignored by economists. It's happening in
Europe, too.
>
>> Your education doesn't seem to be helping you find something useful to
>> do.
>
>Being 66 in the Nehterlands doesn't help.
When I'm 66 in the USA, or 76 if I want, I'll still be working.
I belong to, and support, no political party. I do support Doctors
Without Borders and a girls' school in Africa and a shelter for single
mothers in San Francisco and a charter school in New Orleans. What do
you do?
>
>> I've been told first-hand about life in Denmark, where the native
>> population is doing well but most of the
>> construction/painting/plumbing sorts of jobs are going to questionally
>> legal immigrants, a new underclass.
>
>Demark is a member of the European Community, so the Polish migrant
>workers are perfectly legal, and making quite a bit more money than
>they would in Poland.
Even more, since they are often paid in cash and don't pay taxes.
Ireland has been in the European community a bit
>longer and the Irish economy has improved to the point where the Irish
>aren't as enthusiastic about working away from home as they used to
>be.
>
>> I have a friend who started a business in France. He has no formal
>> employees because it's just too difficult and expensive to start a
>> business and hire people there.
>
>It wouldn't be if the business got big enough to need formal
>employees.
It never will!
>
>> I got involved with a British company
>> that I thought was sincere about developing a technology. What they
>> were actually sincere about was a public floatation, the 20M pounds of
>> which was immediately used not for technology development but to
>> purchase the family stock.
>
>Fraud is international.
>
>> The US is, as usual, just a bit ahead of the curve.
>
>In fact it is quite a bit behind the curve, but no American will
>believe this.
Done any interesting electronics lately?
John
John Larkin
wrote:
>On Nov 22, 6:55�pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> This has more to do with folly of your undercontrolled banking system.
>> You do seem to have noticed that the US house price bubble burst a
>> year or so ago, but you want to blame the consequent contraction of
>> the economy on over-hgih tax rates?
One has to separate short-term stuff (think "weather") from long-term
effects ("climate")
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap_on_bi_ge/us_unemployment_taxes
It's absurd that the more jobs you create, the more unemployment tax
you pay. And if you do create 1000 person-years of jobs, and can't
keep up that pace forever, you are penalized, when I think you should
get a medal. It's entirely rational to have all your chips packaged,
and boards stuffed, and maybe your FPGAs designed, in Indonesia or
India.
John
John Larkin
>John Larkin wrote:
>
>>
>> By "reigning in business practices" you must mean trade barriers. They
>> are mostly illegal by international treaty.
>>
>
>Not trade barriers or protectionism and have no problem with
>competition. It improves the breed :-). However, the current disparity
>between the labour costs between the west and east means that there is
>no chance of competing in many areas of manufacturing at all, where
>labour costs dominate. It's not enough to say that we win in design, or
>high tech skills, because the rest of the world is catching up fast in
>that area as well. There will be nothing left for the west to trade with
>eventually, so what happens then ?.
>
We sell them food.
>As you imply, the real problem is what to do to keep employed all the
>mid to low skill part of the population that have had their work
>exported. They are a majority, btw, so it's not a trivial problem to
>solve long term. High tech workers are only a small proportion of the
>total population.
Taxing employment and investment just makes it worse.
>
>>
>> Do you always buy US-made products, even when they cost a lot more
>> than imports? Are all your cars and appliances and tools US made?
>>
>
>I live in the England, but yes, I do try to buy uk or european made
>stuff where possible and yes, even if it costs more, but only if it's
>better design and quality. We should be capable of competing in that
>area at least. In many cases, you have no choice anyway, because nearly
>everything seems to be made in the far east, even where it doesn't say
>so. It can be difficult to find stuff that's actually made locally.
>
>>
>> What do you mean by "overtake" ? Should the rest of the world stay
>> poor and uneducated and hungry so we can still be NumbahOne?
>>
>> John
>>
>
>No, A more equitable distribution of living standards would be a great
>thing for humanity, as would education so that they might see through
>the lies of politics. Ideally, it should be dependent on a background of
>democracy, not what exists in some of the countries that we seem all too
>ready to do business with. Remember, countries like China are not a
>democracy, but a police state. In any reasonable scenario, we shouldn't
>even be doing business with them, never mind handing over our
>manufacturing industry lock, stock and barrel. With the Chinese currency
>being held artificially low to give them a competitive advantage and the
>us national debt to China accelerating at an ever increasing rate,
>what's likely to be the result for the us ?. You may not be worried by
>this, but I definately am.
The Chinese debt doesn't bother me much. It's not as if we'll ever pay
it back. What the Chinese leadership (and their relatives who own all
the companies) should have done is pay their workers better, and let
them buy more American stuff, instead of shipping us terabucks worth
of cheap products and investing the profits in US treasuries. We'll
keep the stuff.
>
>I know i'm not explaining this very well and don't have any simple
>answers, but I see a western civilisation in decline, quite happy to
>feed undemocratic regimes just so the party of cheap goods from cheap
>labour can continue. We are just sowing the seeds of our own demise,
>long term...
I think the world will gradually, fitfully, become more uniform and
more democratic. That's been the trend since WWII. That could be
described as "west in decline" I guess.
John
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:24:21 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 22, 6:55 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >> This has more to do with folly of your undercontrolled banking system.
> >> You do seem to have noticed that the US house price bubble burst a
> >> year or so ago, but you want to blame the consequent contraction of
> >> the economy on over-hgih tax rates?
>
> One has to separate short-term stuff (think "weather") from long-term
> effects ("climate")
>
>
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap_on_bi_ge/us_unemployment_taxes
>
> It's absurd that the more jobs you create, the more unemployment tax
> you pay.
It's also absurd to think infinite benefits can be squeezed out of
companies without killing jobs. That's what the unions did to heavy
industry.
All these benefits have costs.
Our new minimum wage just kicked in, so that teenagers looking for
their first job can earn enough to support a small family. Result?
Teen unemployment is now over 50%.
Taxes? Sure, we need taxes, obviously. But let's not be stupid.
And if you do create 1000 person-years of jobs, and can't
> keep up that pace forever, you are penalized, when I think you should
> get a medal. It's entirely rational to have all your chips packaged,
> and boards stuffed, and maybe your FPGAs designed, in Indonesia or
> India.
>
> John
You get my nomination for a medal John, for manufacturing valor behind
Pelosi lines.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Joel Koltner
news:e3cddf6e-0c94-4e0e...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> Our new minimum wage just kicked in, so that teenagers looking for
> their first job can earn enough to support a small family. Result?
> Teen unemployment is now over 50%.
I thought Jim Yanik was telling us it's the illegal immigrants keeping teens
from getting jobs? :-)
Personally, given how high adult unemployment is now, I suspect one of the
reasons teen unemployment is so high is that many adults are willing to take
an at-/near-minimum-wage job just to try to get by... and if you're hiring
for, e.g., cashiering positions, would you rather have some guy who's 35 with
a family to support (i.e., responsibilities) or an 18-year-old?
> Taxes? Sure, we need taxes, obviously. But let's not be stupid.
Same with the minimum wage, it's just always a question of what the exact
number ought to be. Is it still $8 in California? If you believe this
graph:http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html -- that's still
less in inflation-adjusted dollars than it was in its peak year, 1968. (Also
note the next few graphs where it's clear that one individual working has
never been able to put a family above the povery level.)
I tend to agree with much of what John has to say about taxes being applied at
the wrong places, in ways that often ends up hurting job creation.
---Joel
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:55:51 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>
>
>
>
>
Got any numbers to support this rather implausible claim?
> >> Your education doesn't seem to be helping you find something useful to
> >> do.
>
> >Being 66 in the Nehterlands doesn't help.
>
> When I'm 66 in the USA, or 76 if I want, I'll still be working.
Since you claim to be your own boss, this is plausible, if irrelevant.
<snip>
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:50:54 +0000, ChrisQ <m...@devnull.com> wrote:
> >John Larkin wrote:
>
> >> By "reigning in business practices" you must mean trade barriers. They
> >> are mostly illegal by international treaty.
>
> >Not trade barriers or protectionism and have no problem with
> >competition. It improves the breed :-). However, the current disparity
> >between the labour costs between the west and east means that there is
> >no chance of competing in many areas of manufacturing at all, where
> >labour costs dominate. It's not enough to say that we win in design, or
> >high tech skills, because the rest of the world is catching up fast in
> >that area as well. There will be nothing left for the west to trade with
> >eventually, so what happens then ?.
>
> We sell them food.
>
> >As you imply, the real problem is what to do to keep employed all the
> >mid to low skill part of the population that have had their work
> >exported. They are a majority, btw, so it's not a trivial problem to
> >solve long term. High tech workers are only a small proportion of the
> >total population.
>
> Taxing employment and investment just makes it worse.
Scrimping education and social security also make it worse.
The USA will eventually get universal health care, and enough
electoral reform to stop the rich buying votes (non-stop vote-for-me
ads on TV)?
The sooner, the better.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
Easy to find:
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=1955
"On the back of this industrial output rose America�s middle class.
High-paying manufacturing jobs, in turn, helped spur a robust and
growing economy that depended little on foreign nations for
manufactured goods and armaments.
However, manufacturing as a share of the economy has been plummeting.
In 1965, manufacturing accounted for 53 percent of the economy. By
1988 it only accounted for 39 percent, and in 2004, it accounted for
just 9 percent."
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121591751/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
"At present, nearly a third
of the companies surveyed undertake three quarters or more of their
production
in the EU-15; according to the survey results this will fall to just
19 percent in
three years� time, with the primary beneficiaries of this trend
expected to be
China and eastern Europe. The survey points to a similar decline in
the proportion
of research and development (R&D) likely to be carried out in the
EU-15. Whereas
44 percent of the surveyed companies currently undertake 75 percent or
more of
their R&D in the EU, only 31 percent expect to be doing so in three
years."
There's plenty more. Look it up.
>
>> >> Your education doesn't seem to be helping you find something useful to
>> >> do.
>>
>> >Being 66 in the Nehterlands doesn't help.
>>
>> When I'm 66 in the USA, or 76 if I want, I'll still be working.
>
>Since you claim to be your own boss, this is plausible, if irrelevant.
I could find a "real" job any time.
John
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> On Nov 23, 2:16 am, John Larkin wrote:
> > Taxing employment and investment just makes it worse.
>
> Scrimping education and social security also make it worse.
Scrimping? In constant-dollars we're spending nearly 3x on education
from decades ago.
http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2008/07/education-spending.html
It's not the money, it's the school system, run for a generation by
unionized Liberals with infinite benefits--your perfect world.
Everyone gets a prize, but only 1/3rd learn to read.
Oh, and note that teachers' getting your iron-clad retirement and
health care hasn't improved their product a lick. Neither has that
philosophy improved the kids teachers have to work with--the dole
hasn't improved the masses, it just traps them.
<snip>
> > I think the world will gradually, fitfully, become more uniform and
> > more democratic.
>
> The USA will eventually get universal health care, and enough
> electoral reform to stop the rich buying votes (non-stop vote-for-me
> ads on TV)?
What works best these days is rich Democrats promoting envy, re(dis)
tribution, free services, and that someone else will pay.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Robert Baer
> On Nov 21, 3:37 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
>> **copy**
>
>> tax increase?
>>
>> In a word, yes. Back in August 1993, President Clinton passed the
>> of 1993 (OBRA) � and made it retroactive to January of that year.
>>
>> It was challenged in court, and the court held that retroactive tax
>> increases were legal. This was not the first time this sort of chicanery
>> had been pulled. (You can read more on the topic of retroactive taxes by
>> clicking here.)
>
> Robert, could you give that link?
>
> Under the section describing Congress, the Constitution says:
>
> "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
> --Article I. Section 9, U.S. Constitution
>
> http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
>
> I'm curious how they justify passing a law ex post facto.
>
> I guess that's the beauty of a living, breathing document--it lets you
> do whatever you want. Like jail opponents.
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> James Arthur
avoided and plain contradicted with "laws"?
Slavery, stealing our gold, "selective service", sending national
guard to foreign lands to be ordered around by foreign powers, etc & etc...
"Patriot" act, Homeland "Security" act, wire tapping without
warrants, etc, etc...
One could go on for days...
Robert Baer
Robert Baer
> On Nov 21, 10:22 pm, don <don> wrote:
>> dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Nov 21, 3:37 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>> **copy**
>>>> tax increase?
>>>> In a word, yes. Back in August 1993, President Clinton passed the
>>>> of 1993 (OBRA) � and made it retroactive to January of that year.
theft by the FED (like last time).
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
He who Laffs last...
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
ChrisQ
>
> We sell them food.
>
That's fantasy. We are all going to become farmers and get back to the
land :-).
>
> I think the world will gradually, fitfully, become more uniform and
> more democratic. That's been the trend since WWII. That could be
> described as "west in decline" I guess.
>
> John
>
Ok, decline of traditional industries, but a message of hope indeed.
That's the best kind of sentiment and the same stuff that put men on the
moon in the 60's. The belief that all and any problem can be solved if
the will and effort is there...
Regards,
Chris
Rich Grise
>
> If more domestic taxation was shifted to sales tax, including taxes on
> services, and less were heaped on employers, we'd have more domestic jobs.
>
Thanks,
Rich
John Larkin
wrote:
Of course. But if the government is going to raise X trillions of
dollars a year, isn't is better to tax things that are inherently
immobile, like services, as opposed to taxing things that will be
exported by increased costs, like manufacturing?
We get to keep more jobs here if taxes are shifted towards services.
John