(01-19-2017 04:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  At the risk of throwing gasoline on a fire that is dying out, I want to further speak to this.

We certainly want our elected national representatives to represent us in ways that bring credit to the nation. But we were not electing role models, we were electing people to take actions on behalf of our country. I didn't like it when he made fun of Fiorena's looks. I didn't like it when he made the "rapists" comment. I didn't like the "deplorables" comment either. But the things I consider important are not these things, but how will the US react if Russia invades Estonia, or what will our President have to say if there is another Paris attack, or how will we get middle class jobs back to America? If you have problems with your house, but the guy who can fix them is unacceptable to you because he spits tobacco juice on the floor, I guess you have to choose. Clean floors or fixed house.

Trump is not my role model. I hope my grandchildren do not grow up to be like him. But I think they have a better chance of growing up in an America in which they have jobs and freedom if he is the President. I think, after eight years of hoping for hope and change, we can actually hope for real change. Maybe it won't happen, or maybe it will not be good change. But at this point, I think it -change for the better - CAN happen, and so I will be watching. Reserving judgement at this point.

I'm impressed that you have been able to glean that Trump will give your grandchildren a chance to live in a better world since he hasn't exactly been forthcoming with the details on how he will accomplish that.

What specifics has Trump given that makes you think that they will be more free and have better jobs?

(01-19-2017 05:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2017 04:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  At the risk of throwing gasoline on a fire that is dying out, I want to further speak to this.

We certainly want our elected national representatives to represent us in ways that bring credit to the nation. But we were not electing role models, we were electing people to take actions on behalf of our country. I didn't like it when he made fun of Fiorena's looks. I didn't like it when he made the "rapists" comment. I didn't like the "deplorables" comment either. But the things I consider important are not these things, but how will the US react if Russia invades Estonia, or what will our President have to say if there is another Paris attack, or how will we get middle class jobs back to America? If you have problems with your house, but the guy who can fix them is unacceptable to you because he spits tobacco juice on the floor, I guess you have to choose. Clean floors or fixed house.

Trump is not my role model. I hope my grandchildren do not grow up to be like him. But I think they have a better chance of growing up in an America in which they have jobs and freedom if he is the President. I think, after eight years of hoping for hope and change, we can actually hope for real change. Maybe it won't happen, or maybe it will not be good change. But at this point, I think it -change for the better - CAN happen, and so I will be watching. Reserving judgement at this point.

I'm impressed that you have been able to glean that Trump will give your grandchildren a chance to live in a better world since he hasn't exactly been forthcoming with the details on how he will accomplish that.

What specifics has Trump given that makes you think that they will be more free and have better jobs?

It's a hope. In my opinion, Clinton was the "more of the same" candidate, which would lead us farther down the road of minimal growth, widening income inequality, and a disappearing middle class, and a further diminishing of American prestige in the world. Trump could be either better or worse than "Status Quo" Hillary, but he will be different. Time will tell if he is different better or different worse. I have hopes it will be the former. I had little hope that Hillary would make things better - my sense of her was that her agenda would be fulfilled as she stepped down from the Inaugural stand. First female President - end of story.

Specifically, I think his views on taxation and repatriation could be stimuli, if done correctly.

But as i said, for now I am in a wait and see mode, but it is a hopeful one, not one full of dread.

It sounds like you think he will be worse for jobs and worse for freedom. Your specifics?

So speaking of waiting to see what someone would do, I remember OO's slamming of Obama for the Geithner and Daschle nominations -- proof of the horrors of a lack of "executive experience".

Trump hasn't even been inaugurated yet and he's already got Mulvaney and his failure to pay nanny taxes, plus Mnuchin and his misrepresentation of his assets in Senate finance committee disclosures.

So what's the issue now, OO? Is it that Trump has _too much_ "executive experience"? Or maybe his experience doesn't qualify somehow?

(And this is all not to mention Trump nominating as head of the DOE a guy who had previously promised to eliminate the DOE if given the chance, only to walk that back over the last few days "after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy".)

(01-19-2017 06:50 PM)JOwl Wrote:  So speaking of waiting to see what someone would do, I remember OO's slamming of Obama for the Geithner and Daschle nominations -- proof of the horrors of a lack of "executive experience".

Trump hasn't even been inaugurated yet and he's already got Mulvaney and his failure to pay nanny taxes, plus Mnuchin and his misrepresentation of his assets in Senate finance committee disclosures.

So what's the issue now, OO? Is it that Trump has _too much_ "executive experience"? Or maybe his experience doesn't qualify somehow?

(And this is all not to mention Trump nominating as head of the DOE a guy who had previously promised to eliminate the DOE if given the chance, only to walk that back over the last few days "after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy".)

Are you sure? I thought Geithner was one of the four I thought might be good. maybe it was Holder. anyway, there were four I thought might be good, and only Gates did not disappoint.

In any case, i was initially (right after the election) very critical of Obama, and everything he did, and then some of the Obamaphiles (maybe you?) said "give him a chance - he hasn't even been sworn in yet", so I took a step back and tried to be objective. I thought that was good advice then, and think so now.

As i said, I had hopes that Obama would move to the middle, as so many do after Election Day, and of course all you can do there is wait and see.

sorry if this spoils your Gotcha moment, but that's the way I remember it.

Speaking of not paying taxes, didn't Geithner have that issue too?

I prefer hiring executives with executive experience. Just seems logical. But it is not a hard and fast rule. sometimes the one with experience don't have good experience.

I know we don't agree on this, but I think Obama shows the problems with hiring somebody with no executive experience and expecting them to learn on the job.

(01-19-2017 06:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-19-2017 05:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2017 04:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  At the risk of throwing gasoline on a fire that is dying out, I want to further speak to this.

We certainly want our elected national representatives to represent us in ways that bring credit to the nation. But we were not electing role models, we were electing people to take actions on behalf of our country. I didn't like it when he made fun of Fiorena's looks. I didn't like it when he made the "rapists" comment. I didn't like the "deplorables" comment either. But the things I consider important are not these things, but how will the US react if Russia invades Estonia, or what will our President have to say if there is another Paris attack, or how will we get middle class jobs back to America? If you have problems with your house, but the guy who can fix them is unacceptable to you because he spits tobacco juice on the floor, I guess you have to choose. Clean floors or fixed house.

Trump is not my role model. I hope my grandchildren do not grow up to be like him. But I think they have a better chance of growing up in an America in which they have jobs and freedom if he is the President. I think, after eight years of hoping for hope and change, we can actually hope for real change. Maybe it won't happen, or maybe it will not be good change. But at this point, I think it -change for the better - CAN happen, and so I will be watching. Reserving judgement at this point.

I'm impressed that you have been able to glean that Trump will give your grandchildren a chance to live in a better world since he hasn't exactly been forthcoming with the details on how he will accomplish that.

What specifics has Trump given that makes you think that they will be more free and have better jobs?

It's a hope. In my opinion, Clinton was the "more of the same" candidate, which would lead us farther down the road of minimal growth, widening income inequality, and a disappearing middle class, and a further diminishing of American prestige in the world. Trump could be either better or worse than "Status Quo" Hillary, but he will be different. Time will tell if he is different better or different worse. I have hopes it will be the former. I had little hope that Hillary would make things better - my sense of her was that her agenda would be fulfilled as she stepped down from the Inaugural stand. First female President - end of story.

Specifically, I think his views on taxation and repatriation could be stimuli, if done correctly.

But as i said, for now I am in a wait and see mode, but it is a hopeful one, not one full of dread.

It sounds like you think he will be worse for jobs and worse for freedom. Your specifics?

Worse for freedoms: calls for more liberal libel laws due to an apparent disdain for the press, criticism, and facts, him supporting Duarte's vigilante style justice in the Philippines, and the agenda of his VP with regards to the LGBT community.

For jobs, I don't know if he will be better or worse, but I think he is too fixated on the pst when he talks about Making America Great Again. He doesn't offer bold visions for the next generation of jobs - he focuses heavily on manufacturing jobs in older industries where jobs aren't necessarily being replaced by foreign workers but by machines. It's a lot more attractive to say Trump will get your old job back then Trump will train you for a new job in an industry that we expect to start growing in the future.

I expect if he attempts to put tariffs on foreign goods that it will only lead to trade wars that will hurt our middle class by driving up the costs of goods.

Also, while I think we should reduce our corporate tax rate to encourage companies to move their money back to the US, I don't think any savings will go to new jobs - it will go to shareholders. However, I believe that more would cause us to gain more tax revenues from that move, which is why I support it.

I also like his focus on infrastructure, somewhere I do see him helping the middle class. However, that's a very democratic idea, and one pushed by Obama and Clinton, so that shouldn't come as a surprise.

I'm still in wait and see, because you're right, maybe he could turn out to be good at his new job. I just hate that he is a big giant turd of a human being. We deserve better.

(01-19-2017 07:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2017 06:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-19-2017 05:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2017 04:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  At the risk of throwing gasoline on a fire that is dying out, I want to further speak to this.

We certainly want our elected national representatives to represent us in ways that bring credit to the nation. But we were not electing role models, we were electing people to take actions on behalf of our country. I didn't like it when he made fun of Fiorena's looks. I didn't like it when he made the "rapists" comment. I didn't like the "deplorables" comment either. But the things I consider important are not these things, but how will the US react if Russia invades Estonia, or what will our President have to say if there is another Paris attack, or how will we get middle class jobs back to America? If you have problems with your house, but the guy who can fix them is unacceptable to you because he spits tobacco juice on the floor, I guess you have to choose. Clean floors or fixed house.

Trump is not my role model. I hope my grandchildren do not grow up to be like him. But I think they have a better chance of growing up in an America in which they have jobs and freedom if he is the President. I think, after eight years of hoping for hope and change, we can actually hope for real change. Maybe it won't happen, or maybe it will not be good change. But at this point, I think it -change for the better - CAN happen, and so I will be watching. Reserving judgement at this point.

I'm impressed that you have been able to glean that Trump will give your grandchildren a chance to live in a better world since he hasn't exactly been forthcoming with the details on how he will accomplish that.

What specifics has Trump given that makes you think that they will be more free and have better jobs?

It's a hope. In my opinion, Clinton was the "more of the same" candidate, which would lead us farther down the road of minimal growth, widening income inequality, and a disappearing middle class, and a further diminishing of American prestige in the world. Trump could be either better or worse than "Status Quo" Hillary, but he will be different. Time will tell if he is different better or different worse. I have hopes it will be the former. I had little hope that Hillary would make things better - my sense of her was that her agenda would be fulfilled as she stepped down from the Inaugural stand. First female President - end of story.

Specifically, I think his views on taxation and repatriation could be stimuli, if done correctly.

But as i said, for now I am in a wait and see mode, but it is a hopeful one, not one full of dread.

It sounds like you think he will be worse for jobs and worse for freedom. Your specifics?

Worse for freedoms: calls for more liberal libel laws due to an apparent disdain for the press, criticism, and facts, him supporting Duarte's vigilante style justice in the Philippines, and the agenda of his VP with regards to the LGBT community.

For jobs, I don't know if he will be better or worse, but I think he is too fixated on the pst when he talks about Making America Great Again. He doesn't offer bold visions for the next generation of jobs - he focuses heavily on manufacturing jobs in older industries where jobs aren't necessarily being replaced by foreign workers but by machines. It's a lot more attractive to say Trump will get your old job back then Trump will train you for a new job in an industry that we expect to start growing in the future.

I expect if he attempts to put tariffs on foreign goods that it will only lead to trade wars that will hurt our middle class by driving up the costs of goods.

Also, while I think we should reduce our corporate tax rate to encourage companies to move their money back to the US, I don't think any savings will go to new jobs - it will go to shareholders. However, I believe that more would cause us to gain more tax revenues from that move, which is why I support it.

I also like his focus on infrastructure, somewhere I do see him helping the middle class. However, that's a very democratic idea, and one pushed by Obama and Clinton, so that shouldn't come as a surprise.

I'm still in wait and see, because you're right, maybe he could turn out to be good at his new job. I just hate that he is a big giant turd of a human being. We deserve better.

Do we? If so, maybe somebody should have offered a better choice.

Regardless, I see your freedom worries as minor things. I think we are well underway to a society where wrongthink is a crime. It's already an enhancement.

Why is it wrong for Pence to have views but not others? I don't agree with a lot of them, but this blanket condemnation from the left of all things religious is getting old. And this from a guy who is pro- gay marriage, fine with transgenders, and doesn't give a damn about abortion laws one way or the other.

The tariffs worry me. I spent thirty years as an importer. I will need to see the details, though.

I'm OK with the infrastructure, and don't care who gets credit for it. We always need to maintain and improve our infrastructure.

I think if the companies move back to the U. S., there will be jobs. It is more than just corporate HQ - there are many many plant abroad. I wonder how many of Heinz's plants are in the U. S.

(01-19-2017 08:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-19-2017 07:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2017 06:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-19-2017 05:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2017 04:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  At the risk of throwing gasoline on a fire that is dying out, I want to further speak to this.

We certainly want our elected national representatives to represent us in ways that bring credit to the nation. But we were not electing role models, we were electing people to take actions on behalf of our country. I didn't like it when he made fun of Fiorena's looks. I didn't like it when he made the "rapists" comment. I didn't like the "deplorables" comment either. But the things I consider important are not these things, but how will the US react if Russia invades Estonia, or what will our President have to say if there is another Paris attack, or how will we get middle class jobs back to America? If you have problems with your house, but the guy who can fix them is unacceptable to you because he spits tobacco juice on the floor, I guess you have to choose. Clean floors or fixed house.

Trump is not my role model. I hope my grandchildren do not grow up to be like him. But I think they have a better chance of growing up in an America in which they have jobs and freedom if he is the President. I think, after eight years of hoping for hope and change, we can actually hope for real change. Maybe it won't happen, or maybe it will not be good change. But at this point, I think it -change for the better - CAN happen, and so I will be watching. Reserving judgement at this point.

I'm impressed that you have been able to glean that Trump will give your grandchildren a chance to live in a better world since he hasn't exactly been forthcoming with the details on how he will accomplish that.

What specifics has Trump given that makes you think that they will be more free and have better jobs?

It's a hope. In my opinion, Clinton was the "more of the same" candidate, which would lead us farther down the road of minimal growth, widening income inequality, and a disappearing middle class, and a further diminishing of American prestige in the world. Trump could be either better or worse than "Status Quo" Hillary, but he will be different. Time will tell if he is different better or different worse. I have hopes it will be the former. I had little hope that Hillary would make things better - my sense of her was that her agenda would be fulfilled as she stepped down from the Inaugural stand. First female President - end of story.

Specifically, I think his views on taxation and repatriation could be stimuli, if done correctly.

But as i said, for now I am in a wait and see mode, but it is a hopeful one, not one full of dread.

It sounds like you think he will be worse for jobs and worse for freedom. Your specifics?

Worse for freedoms: calls for more liberal libel laws due to an apparent disdain for the press, criticism, and facts, him supporting Duarte's vigilante style justice in the Philippines, and the agenda of his VP with regards to the LGBT community.

For jobs, I don't know if he will be better or worse, but I think he is too fixated on the pst when he talks about Making America Great Again. He doesn't offer bold visions for the next generation of jobs - he focuses heavily on manufacturing jobs in older industries where jobs aren't necessarily being replaced by foreign workers but by machines. It's a lot more attractive to say Trump will get your old job back then Trump will train you for a new job in an industry that we expect to start growing in the future.

I expect if he attempts to put tariffs on foreign goods that it will only lead to trade wars that will hurt our middle class by driving up the costs of goods.

Also, while I think we should reduce our corporate tax rate to encourage companies to move their money back to the US, I don't think any savings will go to new jobs - it will go to shareholders. However, I believe that more would cause us to gain more tax revenues from that move, which is why I support it.

I also like his focus on infrastructure, somewhere I do see him helping the middle class. However, that's a very democratic idea, and one pushed by Obama and Clinton, so that shouldn't come as a surprise.

I'm still in wait and see, because you're right, maybe he could turn out to be good at his new job. I just hate that he is a big giant turd of a human being. We deserve better.

Do we? If so, maybe somebody should have offered a better choice.

Regardless, I see your freedom worries as minor things. I think we are well underway to a society where wrongthink is a crime. It's already an enhancement.

Why is it wrong for Pence to have views but not others? I don't agree with a lot of them, but this blanket condemnation from the left of all things religious is getting old. And this from a guy who is pro- gay marriage, fine with transgenders, and doesn't give a damn about abortion laws one way or the other.

The tariffs worry me. I spent thirty years as an importer. I will need to see the details, though.

I'm OK with the infrastructure, and don't care who gets credit for it. We always need to maintain and improve our infrastructure.

I think if the companies move back to the U. S., there will be jobs. It is more than just corporate HQ - there are many many plant abroad. I wonder how many of Heinz's plants are in the U. S.

To the bold, when did I say it was wrong for Pence to have views? He is certainly well within his right to have those views and he is free to have different views then me. But I do think it is wrong for him to implement legislation based on those views. This is not a blanket condemnation of religious views or opinions, and the right would do good to stop suggesting that any push back is just that. Instead, I am pushing back against legislating using religious arguments and against legislating against people who are gay or transgender (which is what anti-gay marriage and these bathroom bills are). Honestly though, it's more than just LGBT concerns that I disagree with Pence on, he has also defunded Planned Parenthood in Indiana, which was the lone HIV testing center in a county there, which then experienced an HIV outbreak. I look this as Pence trying to take rights from people (right to marriage [now upheld by the SC], right to healthcare, right to not be discriminated against), which is why I put this critique there.

But anyways, how is me disagreeing with Pence's policy (and thinking they are wrong) any different than you disagreeing with Obama's agenda in certain areas? Am I taking crazy pills, or are you trying to do the same thing to me, that you hated liberals doing to you when you critiqued Obama?

And then to the movement of companies back here. Most companies that shelter profits overseas don't necessarily have large work forces overseas, they often have just the minimum to justify having their company headquartered there. I see no connection between reducing corporate taxes and moving manufacturing jobs back.

(01-19-2017 09:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And then to the movement of companies back here. Most companies that shelter profits overseas don't necessarily have large work forces overseas, they often have just the minimum to justify having their company headquartered there. I see no connection between reducing corporate taxes and moving manufacturing jobs back.

If you truly believe that (and I think you probably do), then you've obviously never worked on a plant-siting decision.

(01-19-2017 09:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-19-2017 09:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And then to the movement of companies back here. Most companies that shelter profits overseas don't necessarily have large work forces overseas, they often have just the minimum to justify having their company headquartered there. I see no connection between reducing corporate taxes and moving manufacturing jobs back.

If you truly believe that (and I think you probably do), then you've obviously never worked on a plant-siting decision.

Care to send me some info to change my mind?

I understand how increasing taxes on good made outside of the US would encourage companies to bring manufacturing to the states, but why would reducing corporate taxes encourage the move? The profit gains from the production overseas would still be there, no? I'm no corporate taxation expert, so send me some good info.

(01-19-2017 09:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2017 09:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-19-2017 09:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And then to the movement of companies back here. Most companies that shelter profits overseas don't necessarily have large work forces overseas, they often have just the minimum to justify having their company headquartered there. I see no connection between reducing corporate taxes and moving manufacturing jobs back.

If you truly believe that (and I think you probably do), then you've obviously never worked on a plant-siting decision.

Care to send me some info to change my mind?
I understand how increasing taxes on good made outside of the US would encourage companies to bring manufacturing to the states, but why would reducing corporate taxes encourage the move? The profit gains from the production overseas would still be there, no? I'm no corporate taxation expert, so send me some good info.

OK, US companies are taxed on worldwide income of the parent and all consolidated subsidiaries (all subsidiaries who report on a single return). Unconsolidated subsidiaries are taxed separately, and file separate returns. Unconsolidated foreign subsidiaries are taxed only at the rate in effect in the country where they are located, so long as the profits are no repatriated to the US.

So if I make something in the US, my profits are taxed at the US rate, which is roughly 40% when state taxes are included. If I make that same thing in, say Sweden (picking it because it is usually regarded as a socialist paradise), it will be taxed at 22%. If I bring the profits home, or include the Swedish subsidiary in a consolidated tax return, I pay 22% tax in Sweden and 18% tax in the US (40%-22%). If I expect to make $100 million profit, that's almost $20 million I save by doing it in Sweden and leaving the money overseas.

Same thing works for every other developed country, all of which have lower corporate rates than we do. So take your pick.

As for the work force issue, we've let the focus get totally on the wrong thing. Seeing up Nikes is labor intensive, therefore it goes to places where wage rates are cheap. The stuff I think we should be going after, upscale producer goods like robotics, aren't labor intensive, so lower wage rates are not a big consideration, but what they do require is a labor force with sufficient capability to execute more complex tasks. You may not create a lot of manufacturing jobs, but the jobs you do create pay well, meaning there is a lot more disposable income to pay to barbers and clothiers and restaurants and entertainment, all of which create jobs indirectly.

My own belief is that the left does not want to admit that our taxes make us non-competitive, so they create this sewing up Nikes boogeyman. In the first place, if sewing up Nikes is our economic future, we are pretty much hosed, regardless. Second, as noted above, the jobs we want are elsewhere.

We can't compete with Thailand for cheap labor. Neither can Germany. So instead of crying over Nike-sewing jobs lost to Thailand, Germany develops upscale producer goods as industries where Thai labor lacks the ability to complete.

(01-19-2017 09:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As for the work force issue, we've let the focus get totally on the wrong thing. Seeing up Nikes is labor intensive, therefore it goes to places where wage rates are cheap. The stuff I think we should be going after, upscale producer goods like robotics, aren't labor intensive, so lower wage rates are not a big consideration, but what they do require is a labor force with sufficient capability to execute more complex tasks. You may not create a lot of manufacturing jobs, but the jobs you do create pay well, meaning there is a lot more disposable income to pay to barbers and clothiers and restaurants and entertainment, all of which create jobs indirectly.

My own belief is that the left does not want to admit that our taxes make us non-competitive, so they create this sewing up Nikes boogeyman. In the first place, if sewing up Nikes is our economic future, we are pretty much hosed, regardless. Second, as noted above, the jobs we want are elsewhere.

We can't compete with Thailand for cheap labor. Neither can Germany. So instead of crying over Nike-sewing jobs lost to Thailand, Germany develops upscale producer goods as industries where Thai labor lacks the ability to complete.

I guess I should have been more clear, because we're kind of on the same page. I thought you were suggesting low-skill manufacturing jobs (e.g. the Nike shoe sewing) would come back, which as you said they won't, and even if they did, that isn't really good for us. That's why I hate the whole "Make America Great Again," because it relies on the idea that we just need to make things like they were, despite the fact that the world is rapidly evolving.

You're right that some manufacturing jobs in high-tech industries may come back, but how many left due to corporate tax rates? I know Tesla has not yet moved any of their manufacturing jobs overseas ,and plenty of companies (Boeing, Mercedes, etc) have high-end manufacturing jobs here already, regardless of tax policy.

I've always been of the understanding that the shifting of headquarters overseas (the corporate inversion), and thus the reduction in federal income, was the biggest issue with corporate tax rates, not the shifting of manufacturing/office jobs overseas.

(01-19-2017 09:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I guess I should have been more clear, because we're kind of on the same page. I thought you were suggesting low-skill manufacturing jobs (e.g. the Nike shoe sewing) would come back, which as you said they won't, and even if they did, that isn't really good for us. That's why I hate the whole "Make America Great Again," because it relies on the idea that we just need to make things like they were, despite the fact that the world is rapidly evolving.
You're right that some manufacturing jobs in high-tech industries may come back, but how many left due to corporate tax rates? I know Tesla has not yet moved any of their manufacturing jobs overseas ,and plenty of companies (Boeing, Mercedes, etc) have high-end manufacturing jobs here already, regardless of tax policy.
I've always been of the understanding that the shifting of headquarters overseas (the corporate inversion), and thus the reduction in federal income, was the biggest issue with corporate tax rates, not the shifting of manufacturing/office jobs overseas.

What happens is not so much that they move away, but the they never come here in the first place. Cars and airplanes tend to stay here because the US is a huge market, and the finished products are big enough that the cost of transporting them outweighs the tax savings. Also, they already have the infrastructure in place to support their operations.

We have a negative trade balance with Europe. Think about the implications of that.

The corporate inversions have been very high visibility. But starting unconsolidated foreign subsidiaries to perform the value-added steps, therefore having those steps taxed at lower foreign rates, is also a big factor.

Note that both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin, tasked with finding ways to balance the budget, recommended lowering corporate tax rates as a way to increase revenues.

(01-19-2017 09:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-19-2017 09:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I guess I should have been more clear, because we're kind of on the same page. I thought you were suggesting low-skill manufacturing jobs (e.g. the Nike shoe sewing) would come back, which as you said they won't, and even if they did, that isn't really good for us. That's why I hate the whole "Make America Great Again," because it relies on the idea that we just need to make things like they were, despite the fact that the world is rapidly evolving.
You're right that some manufacturing jobs in high-tech industries may come back, but how many left due to corporate tax rates? I know Tesla has not yet moved any of their manufacturing jobs overseas ,and plenty of companies (Boeing, Mercedes, etc) have high-end manufacturing jobs here already, regardless of tax policy.
I've always been of the understanding that the shifting of headquarters overseas (the corporate inversion), and thus the reduction in federal income, was the biggest issue with corporate tax rates, not the shifting of manufacturing/office jobs overseas.

What happens is not so much that they move away, but the they never come here in the first place. Cars and airplanes tend to stay here because the US is a huge market, and the finished products are big enough that the cost of transporting them outweighs the tax savings. Also, they already have the infrastructure in place to support their operations.

We have a negative tree balance with Europe. Think about the implications of that.

The corporate inversions have been very high visibility. But starting unconsolidated foreign subsidiaries to perform the value-added steps, therefore having those steps taxed at lower foreign rates, is also a big factor.

Note that both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin, tasked with finding ways to balance the budget, recommended lowering corporate tax rates as a way to increase revenues.

I didn't know that note specifically, but as I mentioned a few times, I knew raising revenues was a possibility by reducing corporate taxes because you would likely grow your taxable revenue pool enough to more than offset the loses from a reduced percent.

I'm in agreement about reducing corporate taxes, just not because we'll see a flood of new jobs.

(01-19-2017 10:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I didn't know that note specifically, but as I mentioned a few times, I knew raising revenues was a possibility by reducing corporate taxes because you would likely grow your taxable revenue pool enough to more than offset the loses from a reduced percent.
I'm in agreement about reducing corporate taxes, just not because we'll see a flood of new jobs.

I'm not sure exactly how many jobs we'd see, but I think the number would be significant. If you look at 10-K's for the multi-national corporations, and see how many tax dollars they are saving by doing business overseas, you see a tremendous incentive to do so.

One big factor would be that as soon as you lowered US taxes to world rates, the tax penalty for repatriating profits would go away. You could easily see $2-3 trillion flow back into the US economy almost immediately, and that could not help but have a significant positive impact on job growth.

(01-19-2017 09:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2017 09:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As for the work force issue, we've let the focus get totally on the wrong thing. Seeing up Nikes is labor intensive, therefore it goes to places where wage rates are cheap. The stuff I think we should be going after, upscale producer goods like robotics, aren't labor intensive, so lower wage rates are not a big consideration, but what they do require is a labor force with sufficient capability to execute more complex tasks. You may not create a lot of manufacturing jobs, but the jobs you do create pay well, meaning there is a lot more disposable income to pay to barbers and clothiers and restaurants and entertainment, all of which create jobs indirectly.

My own belief is that the left does not want to admit that our taxes make us non-competitive, so they create this sewing up Nikes boogeyman. In the first place, if sewing up Nikes is our economic future, we are pretty much hosed, regardless. Second, as noted above, the jobs we want are elsewhere.

We can't compete with Thailand for cheap labor. Neither can Germany. So instead of crying over Nike-sewing jobs lost to Thailand, Germany develops upscale producer goods as industries where Thai labor lacks the ability to complete.

I guess I should have been more clear, because we're kind of on the same page. I thought you were suggesting low-skill manufacturing jobs (e.g. the Nike shoe sewing) would come back, which as you said they won't, and even if they did, that isn't really good for us. That's why I hate the whole "Make America Great Again," because it relies on the idea that we just need to make things like they were, despite the fact that the world is rapidly evolving.

You're right that some manufacturing jobs in high-tech industries may come back, but how many left due to corporate tax rates? I know Tesla has not yet moved any of their manufacturing jobs overseas ,and plenty of companies (Boeing, Mercedes, etc) have high-end manufacturing jobs here already, regardless of tax policy.

I've always been of the understanding that the shifting of headquarters overseas (the corporate inversion), and thus the reduction in federal income, was the biggest issue with corporate tax rates, not the shifting of manufacturing/office jobs overseas.

This is all far too subtle for the average populist/leftist, who seems to believe that the principal economic fact of the 20th century is the decline of blacksmithing and elevator operating as occupations.

(01-19-2017 11:49 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-19-2017 09:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2017 09:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As for the work force issue, we've let the focus get totally on the wrong thing. Seeing up Nikes is labor intensive, therefore it goes to places where wage rates are cheap. The stuff I think we should be going after, upscale producer goods like robotics, aren't labor intensive, so lower wage rates are not a big consideration, but what they do require is a labor force with sufficient capability to execute more complex tasks. You may not create a lot of manufacturing jobs, but the jobs you do create pay well, meaning there is a lot more disposable income to pay to barbers and clothiers and restaurants and entertainment, all of which create jobs indirectly.

My own belief is that the left does not want to admit that our taxes make us non-competitive, so they create this sewing up Nikes boogeyman. In the first place, if sewing up Nikes is our economic future, we are pretty much hosed, regardless. Second, as noted above, the jobs we want are elsewhere.

We can't compete with Thailand for cheap labor. Neither can Germany. So instead of crying over Nike-sewing jobs lost to Thailand, Germany develops upscale producer goods as industries where Thai labor lacks the ability to complete.

I guess I should have been more clear, because we're kind of on the same page. I thought you were suggesting low-skill manufacturing jobs (e.g. the Nike shoe sewing) would come back, which as you said they won't, and even if they did, that isn't really good for us. That's why I hate the whole "Make America Great Again," because it relies on the idea that we just need to make things like they were, despite the fact that the world is rapidly evolving.

You're right that some manufacturing jobs in high-tech industries may come back, but how many left due to corporate tax rates? I know Tesla has not yet moved any of their manufacturing jobs overseas ,and plenty of companies (Boeing, Mercedes, etc) have high-end manufacturing jobs here already, regardless of tax policy.

I've always been of the understanding that the shifting of headquarters overseas (the corporate inversion), and thus the reduction in federal income, was the biggest issue with corporate tax rates, not the shifting of manufacturing/office jobs overseas.

This is all far too subtle for the average populist/leftist, who seems to believe that the principal economic fact of the 20th century is the decline of blacksmithing and elevator operating as occupations.

It's not as if the average conservative deals with subtly well either...

But I think the reason the majority of liberals oppose a reduction in corporate taxes is because they're so cynical about the motivations of corporations, that the chance to increase the revenue basis is outweighed by the belief that the reduction in taxes will just go into the pockets of the corporate big wigs.

My thought for today:

O Lord our Governor, whose glory is in all the world: We commend this nation to your merciful care, that, being guided by your Providence, we may dwell secure in your peace. Grant to the President of the United States, and to all in authority, wisdom and strength to know and to do your will. Fill them with the love of truth and righteousness, and make them ever mindful of their calling to serve this people in your fear; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

My thought for today: best of luck to Trump, as his actions/inactions have the chance to greatly affect this nation. I would love to be proven wrong about the level of quality that I think his presidency will ultimately be.

Also, I hope that both Trump and the rest of our elected officials can work together and somehow reduce the level of partisanship we have seen divide our congress and continue to work towards perfecting the union.

(01-20-2017 05:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But I think the reason the majority of liberals oppose a reduction in corporate taxes is because they're so cynical about the motivations of corporations, that the chance to increase the revenue basis is outweighed by the belief that the reduction in taxes will just go into the pockets of the corporate big wigs.

Without questioning the validity of that belief, so what if it does? That money isn't buried in tomato cans in the back yard, it is reinvested in order to grow. So it ends up funding growth and jobs somewhere.

As for the belief itself, as long as everybody gets the same tax treatment, then if company A's executives line their pockets and company B passes the savings through to its customers, what is going to happen to market share?