Government is going to take part of our money and there's no getting around that. I don't like it any more than you do but its a given.

I dont have the answer but I dont think a flat rate would work as well as people think. I know a consumption/federal tax is not the answer. Plus like it or not with any form of tax....

there will be exemptions on low income people

But what bugs me more than anything is not a federal or state income tax...its all the other taxes on every bill we get. That money adds up. On my last $331 electric bill, 22% of it was taxes we never think about, not even counting a $38 energy cost use (what ever that is). Plus the 1.5% property tax on our homes, cars, boats

You have to be careful of the europophiles trying their best to get us accustomed to the European style of socialism in the name of libertarianism. Absolutely nothing in common with the libertarian party and what they propose.

Here's the thing. You need a certain amount of tax revenue to run government. You have a bogey that you have to make to stay in business. You can reduce that number by cutting spending. You can ignore that number and run huge deficits because voters don't like paying for the "free" stuff that they want. But like Maggie Thatcher said, sooner or later you run out of other people's money. Ask Greece how well that works.

A balanced budget forces some discipline into the process. You can't give stuff away to buy votes without paying for it (which costs votes). The trick is in how you pay for it. We have this redistributionist approach. You tax the rich to provide benefits for the poor. Who gets screwed? The middle class. Europe has more of safety net approach. Everybody benefits and everybody pays. They tax the middle class more than we do, which they make up by not cutting off benefits when you hit a certain level of income. That lets them provide a better safety net for those at the bottom, at the same time that they provide more tax-efficient returns on investment at the top. It's a question of which philosophy you prefer.

One advantage of the European approach is that you don't need the vast and expensive network of gate-keepers that we have. The French government spends less per capita on health care than the US government, but provides universal health care in a market environment. How? Because their administrative costs are minimal.

We are about to see what our Gordon Gekko wannabe New York buddies call a correction.

Crazy to me that Trump has moved Republicans to 1980s Dick Gephard style democratic positions on trade. This is an issue Reagan won... he forced the democratic party to move on the issue and now we have republicans celebrating protectionism. It's amazing to me.

(07-01-2018 08:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd8uiIpAy8E

Summarized:

Go back to 1944, Bretton Woods. Everybody knows about the currency agreement. But there was more to it than that. WWII was ending. Western Europe was virtually destroyed. But we needed them on our side to fight the Cold War. So we bribed them. We'll let you have a bunch of trade deals that are very favorable to you, so you can get your economies back up and running. And we will provide security for your trade routes, so you don't have to spend much on defense. In return, you'll follow our lead in the Cold War.

Problem is, it worked. And nobody had figured out what to do if we did win. I remember Ross Perot said what I was thinking, "In the post-Cold-War era, economic strength will matter more than military strength." But we didn't shift gears. We are still living with tax and trade policies that favor them over us. We're still spending way more than they are to defend their trade routes. And our world policeman label has led lots of groups like al-Qaeda to hate us.

We tied one hand behind our back from an economic competitiveness standpoint in order to win the Cold War. Trade policy gave in to defense policy. But that's not where we are any more.

So what to do? Here's my idea. Do a consumption tax. That levels a lot of the playing field by itself. It also lets us lower income taxes and take the burden of health care off employers by implementing Bismarck, making us way more attractive to investment. It also gives us enough to replace the welfare plantation with a guaranteed minimum income, which reduces inequality dramatically over time. And we balance the budget which frees up capital markets. And since it's not a tariff, it's not subject to WTO regulation, and there's no real way to retaliate. Then tell everybody they have to pick up more of the defense load, and we will help them do it.

You make a lot of sense on this. The US sacrificed an equal playing field on trade in order to lead the war against communism and it was absolutely the correct decision. Now we have pretty much force these countries to stand on their own two feet for the sake of economic security. I'm not sure the best path forward, but I think pulling back military support from Europe is a good start. Leave enough bases and troops to maintain a defensive posture, but bring the majority of them home. The US doesn't need multiple bases in Europe to defend against Russian aggression if we aren't going to use them (see Crimea). Let Europe defend Europe, if they want a US presence they can negotiate with fair trade deals. I'd also contribute only what the US is obligated to towards both NATO and the UN in the next budget. Put the world on notice that protection comes at a price.

On a side note, I'd take the resources from Europe and distribute along the southern border and work out propositions for bases in S. America. Why couldn't the US take the same approach with Central and South America that we did with Europe after WWII? Think of the hundreds of billions saved if we could help make Central and South America more economically and politically stable.

(07-01-2018 10:24 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  A consumption/federal tax would have to be in the 12 to 15% range to work. So lets start at 12% and a person in Tenn is now paying 22% of their income just on consumption.

But lets not kid ourself....that tax will increase every few years and would be no different than in the UK where the tax stared out at 10% in 1973 and its double that. Not only doubled but taxes just about everything.

So what is not taxed? Is anyone exempted? So now a person living on $1700 a month from SS is going to lose another 12% (without any state tax) on everything they buy? Are we going to tax homes? That 25,000 dollar new car is now cost $28,000. I wonder what that does for new car sales?

So do we tax second hand sales, like used cars, or clothes, or any number of items? If not you will see a slow down in spending on new items. Lot cheaper buying used. How about food is that going to be taxed? I would think so on eating out. So now your family goes out and eats at $15 a plate dinner and that $60 is $67 and you still get to add in another 15 to 20% for the tip. So now that $15 a plate ends up costing almost $80.

I understand 12% is lower than what most of middle America is paying in income tax....but now you are paying 12% on ALL money spent which today is almost all income...very little savings. The working class gets poorer.

Then you will create a large black market on resales. Hell if something is taxed everytime its sold by the time its no longer worth anything taxes collected on it will be in the 24 to 36% range...resold 2 to 3


Without exemptions for the old and the poor it just makes both groups relying on government help.

I prefer the income tax. Its transparent. A consumption tax is hidden and is way too easy to generate money for the government. While there are theoretical reasons to prefer a consumption tax, from a practical standpoint, it would turn us into Europe where governments find it too easy to spend money.

(07-02-2018 08:31 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Crazy to me that Trump has moved Republicans to 1980s Dick Gephard style democratic positions on trade. This is an issue Reagan won... he forced the democratic party to move on the issue and now we have republicans celebrating protectionism. It's amazing to me.

The opposite of "getting completely screwed over on trade" is not protectionism.

(07-02-2018 08:43 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-01-2018 08:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd8uiIpAy8E
Summarized:
Go back to 1944, Bretton Woods. Everybody knows about the currency agreement. But there was more to it than that. WWII was ending. Western Europe was virtually destroyed. But we needed them on our side to fight the Cold War. So we bribed them. We'll let you have a bunch of trade deals that are very favorable to you, so you can get your economies back up and running. And we will provide security for your trade routes, so you don't have to spend much on defense. In return, you'll follow our lead in the Cold War.
Problem is, it worked. And nobody had figured out what to do if we did win. I remember Ross Perot said what I was thinking, "In the post-Cold-War era, economic strength will matter more than military strength." But we didn't shift gears. We are still living with tax and trade policies that favor them over us. We're still spending way more than they are to defend their trade routes. And our world policeman label has led lots of groups like al-Qaeda to hate us.
We tied one hand behind our back from an economic competitiveness standpoint in order to win the Cold War. Trade policy gave in to defense policy. But that's not where we are any more.
So what to do? Here's my idea. Do a consumption tax. That levels a lot of the playing field by itself. It also lets us lower income taxes and take the burden of health care off employers by implementing Bismarck, making us way more attractive to investment. It also gives us enough to replace the welfare plantation with a guaranteed minimum income, which reduces inequality dramatically over time. And we balance the budget which frees up capital markets. And since it's not a tariff, it's not subject to WTO regulation, and there's no real way to retaliate. Then tell everybody they have to pick up more of the defense load, and we will help them do it.

You make a lot of sense on this. The US sacrificed an equal playing field on trade in order to lead the war against communism and it was absolutely the correct decision. Now we have pretty much force these countries to stand on their own two feet for the sake of economic security. I'm not sure the best path forward, but I think pulling back military support from Europe is a good start. Leave enough bases and troops to maintain a defensive posture, but bring the majority of them home. The US doesn't need multiple bases in Europe to defend against Russian aggression if we aren't going to use them (see Crimea). Let Europe defend Europe, if they want a US presence they can negotiate with fair trade deals. I'd also contribute only what the US is obligated to towards both NATO and the UN in the next budget. Put the world on notice that protection comes at a price.
On a side note, I'd take the resources from Europe and distribute along the southern border and work out propositions for bases in S. America. Why couldn't the US take the same approach with Central and South America that we did with Europe after WWII? Think of the hundreds of billions saved if we could help make Central and South America more economically and politically stable.

We really can't do much about Crimea or Georgia or Chechnya. We have set up our expeditionary forces around aircraft carrier ready groups, and per the Montreux Convention, we can't take carriers into the Black Sea. Any air support would have to be land based and come from fairly far away. And that complicates matters quite a bit.

(07-02-2018 08:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 08:43 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-01-2018 08:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd8uiIpAy8E
Summarized:
Go back to 1944, Bretton Woods. Everybody knows about the currency agreement. But there was more to it than that. WWII was ending. Western Europe was virtually destroyed. But we needed them on our side to fight the Cold War. So we bribed them. We'll let you have a bunch of trade deals that are very favorable to you, so you can get your economies back up and running. And we will provide security for your trade routes, so you don't have to spend much on defense. In return, you'll follow our lead in the Cold War.
Problem is, it worked. And nobody had figured out what to do if we did win. I remember Ross Perot said what I was thinking, "In the post-Cold-War era, economic strength will matter more than military strength." But we didn't shift gears. We are still living with tax and trade policies that favor them over us. We're still spending way more than they are to defend their trade routes. And our world policeman label has led lots of groups like al-Qaeda to hate us.
We tied one hand behind our back from an economic competitiveness standpoint in order to win the Cold War. Trade policy gave in to defense policy. But that's not where we are any more.
So what to do? Here's my idea. Do a consumption tax. That levels a lot of the playing field by itself. It also lets us lower income taxes and take the burden of health care off employers by implementing Bismarck, making us way more attractive to investment. It also gives us enough to replace the welfare plantation with a guaranteed minimum income, which reduces inequality dramatically over time. And we balance the budget which frees up capital markets. And since it's not a tariff, it's not subject to WTO regulation, and there's no real way to retaliate. Then tell everybody they have to pick up more of the defense load, and we will help them do it.

You make a lot of sense on this. The US sacrificed an equal playing field on trade in order to lead the war against communism and it was absolutely the correct decision. Now we have pretty much force these countries to stand on their own two feet for the sake of economic security. I'm not sure the best path forward, but I think pulling back military support from Europe is a good start. Leave enough bases and troops to maintain a defensive posture, but bring the majority of them home. The US doesn't need multiple bases in Europe to defend against Russian aggression if we aren't going to use them (see Crimea). Let Europe defend Europe, if they want a US presence they can negotiate with fair trade deals. I'd also contribute only what the US is obligated to towards both NATO and the UN in the next budget. Put the world on notice that protection comes at a price.
On a side note, I'd take the resources from Europe and distribute along the southern border and work out propositions for bases in S. America. Why couldn't the US take the same approach with Central and South America that we did with Europe after WWII? Think of the hundreds of billions saved if we could help make Central and South America more economically and politically stable.

We really can't do much about Crimea or Georgia or Chechnya. We have set up our expeditionary forces around aircraft carrier ready groups, and per the Montreux Convention, we can't take carriers into the Black Sea. Any air support would have to be land based and come from fairly far away. And that complicates matters quite a bit.

That kinda illustrates my point to Europe. The US is going to reduce the number of bases unless we are able to workout more fair trade deals. Suddenly more parts of Europe might be exposed.

(07-02-2018 08:47 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 08:31 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Crazy to me that Trump has moved Republicans to 1980s Dick Gephard style democratic positions on trade. This is an issue Reagan won... he forced the democratic party to move on the issue and now we have republicans celebrating protectionism. It's amazing to me.

The opposite of "getting completely screwed over on trade" is not protectionism.

The idea that we are completely getting screwed over on trade is insane and its that old school, leftist protectionist philosophy that gets us there. The United States has consistently benefited from the declining cost of goods and technology made possible by global trade. It has allowed us surpluses in resources and great benefited economic growth. Trump has sold republicans on zero sum, economics that long ago was left behind by both parties as being a simplistic, unsupported theory. Trade deficits don't mean we're losing on trade... We're bringing in resources we have the wealth to bring in that improve our quality of life. Trump has used the Cult of personality to snooker the susceptible on an issue with little grounds in reality. He's abandoned the principals that Reagan pushed on trade and ultimately even moved the opposition party on.

(07-02-2018 10:25 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 08:47 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 08:31 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Crazy to me that Trump has moved Republicans to 1980s Dick Gephard style democratic positions on trade. This is an issue Reagan won... he forced the democratic party to move on the issue and now we have republicans celebrating protectionism. It's amazing to me.

The opposite of "getting completely screwed over on trade" is not protectionism.

The idea that we are completely getting screwed over on trade is insane and its that old school, leftist protectionist philosophy that gets us there. The United States has consistently benefited from the declining cost of goods and technology made possible by global trade. It has allowed us surpluses in resources and great benefited economic growth. Trump has sold republicans on zero sum, economics that long ago was left behind by both parties as being a simplistic, unsupported theory. Trade deficits don't mean we're losing on trade... We're bringing in resources we have the wealth to bring in that improve our quality of life. Trump has used the Cult of personality to snooker the susceptible on an issue with little grounds in reality. He's abandoned the principals that Reagan pushed on trade and ultimately even moved the opposition party on.

You really think your quality of life has improved because of cheap items made in China? You think your kids quality of life is improved because they have a phone in heir hands or with in reach 24/7? Or they spend hours each day on a game system?

You think your quality of life has improved because you now have 2 or 3 cars, a TV in most rooms and able to buy more cheap items?

That's not improvement...

there's no good reason for a new model of TV, Phone, Tablet, or what ever to come out every year and we thing we actually need it. BTW, that growth you speak of has been built on the back of borrowed money...trillions and trillions of money, you wont be alive to pay back.

Your ideal of quality of life is not the same as mine

Ok, so what is the answer here, then ?

I have no favorites here. Just want the best solution.

Hate to say it, but there does not appear to be a perfect solution.

(07-02-2018 08:31 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Crazy to me that Trump has moved Republicans to 1980s Dick Gephard style democratic positions on trade. This is an issue Reagan won... he forced the democratic party to move on the issue and now we have republicans celebrating protectionism. It's amazing to me.

Protectionism is not whats going on. Free trade is free trade. If Canada and Europe have tariffs on any of our products---then how exactly is that free trade? Trump has proposed a completely tariff free zone between the nations of the G7. Thats what free trade is. Letting our trading partner exercise protectionism while the US embraces a completely free trade model is simply is a recipe to make jobs the #1 US export.

(07-02-2018 11:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 08:31 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Crazy to me that Trump has moved Republicans to 1980s Dick Gephard style democratic positions on trade. This is an issue Reagan won... he forced the democratic party to move on the issue and now we have republicans celebrating protectionism. It's amazing to me.

Protectionism is not whats going on. Free trade is free trade. If Canada and Europe have tariffs on any of our products---then how exactly is that free trade? Trump has proposed a completely tariff free zone between the nations of the G7. Thats what free trade is. Letting our trading partner exercise protectionism while the US embraces a completely free trade model is simply is a recipe to make jobs the #1 US export.

Correct. At least not from our side. Other countries are employing protectionism, while demanding our market remain open and free. Just because we are demanding free and open trade does not mean we are going down the protectionist path.

This is the reason why you dont want clueless cucks making trade deals.

The Bernie wing of the democratic party didnt like the trade deals because they thought they hurt (or would hurt) american jobs. Thats protectionism.

Trump didnt like the trade deals because he thought that they were sh*tty deals. And he was right.

The US Chamber of Commerce launched a campaign today to persuade the Trump administration to walk back his tariffs. Their website has a State-by-State interactive map to let you see how much each individual state relies on international trade and what industries in each state will be hit the hardest by Trump's tariffs and the international retaliatory tariffs.

US Chamber of Commerce

For instance, Ohio has $3.3 billion worth of exports targeted for retaliation. Of that, $2.1 billion goes to Canada.

Products hit the hardest will be retail surface-active soap, Iron/non-alloy steel coated/plated with zinc, and washing machines.

(07-02-2018 12:13 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  The US Chamber of Commerce launched a campaign today to persuade the Trump administration to walk back his tariffs. Their website has a State-by-State interactive map to let you see how much each individual state relies on international trade and what industries in each state will be hit the hardest by Trump's tariffs and the international retaliatory tariffs.

US Chamber of Commerce

For instance, Ohio has $3.3 billion worth of exports targeted for retaliation. Of that, $2.1 billion goes to Canada.

Products hit the hardest will be retail surface-active soap, Iron/non-alloy steel coated/plated with zinc, and washing machines.

So what? Why are people incapable of doing math. We run a massive trade deficit. Effectively, as the amount of trade decreases out GDP increases because all the crap we buy from overseas would have to be manufactured here---and the amount of stuff we send overseas is dwarfed by what we have been importing.

What we see is the strategy which will build to an eventual deal. Trump will now raise the stakes by blocking even more overseas products--but will offer to do a trade deal. Even if he doesnt not get every tariff removed---EVERY CONCESSION he DOES get leaves the US economy and its workers BETTER OFF than before. What people dont understand is there already is a trade war. We basically losty---mainly because we never even bothered to fight it. We literally gifted our trading partners that advantage. That "gift" has now expired.

(07-02-2018 11:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 08:31 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Crazy to me that Trump has moved Republicans to 1980s Dick Gephard style democratic positions on trade. This is an issue Reagan won... he forced the democratic party to move on the issue and now we have republicans celebrating protectionism. It's amazing to me.

Protectionism is not whats going on. Free trade is free trade. If Canada and Europe have tariffs on any of our products---then how exactly is that free trade? Trump has proposed a completely tariff free zone between the nations of the G7. Thats what free trade is. Letting our trading partner exercise protectionism while the US embraces a completely free trade model is simply is a recipe to make jobs the #1 US export.

Does free trade involve removing US Subsidies on oil and agriculture?

A tariff free trading zone in the G7 sounds all fine and dandy, but how does that work when the government hands billions of dollars in direct subsidies to corn producers?

(07-02-2018 12:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:13 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  The US Chamber of Commerce launched a campaign today to persuade the Trump administration to walk back his tariffs. Their website has a State-by-State interactive map to let you see how much each individual state relies on international trade and what industries in each state will be hit the hardest by Trump's tariffs and the international retaliatory tariffs.

US Chamber of Commerce

For instance, Ohio has $3.3 billion worth of exports targeted for retaliation. Of that, $2.1 billion goes to Canada.

Products hit the hardest will be retail surface-active soap, Iron/non-alloy steel coated/plated with zinc, and washing machines.

So what? Why are people incapable of doing math. We run a massive trade deficit. Effectively, as the amount of trade decreases out GDP increases because all the crap we buy from overseas would have to be manufactured here---and the amount of stuff we send overseas is dwarfed by what we have been importing.

What we see is the strategy which will build to an eventual deal. Trump will now raise the stakes by blocking even more overseas products--but will offer to do a trade deal. Even if he doesnt not get every tariff removed---EVERY CONCESSION he DOES get leaves the US economy and its workers BETTER OFF than before. What people dont understand is there already is a trade war. We basically losty---mainly because we never even bothered to fight it. We literally gifted our trading partners that advantage. That "gift" has now expired.

If you think this is how trade works I suggest taking an economics class or two. Economics are not zero sum and having a "trade deficit," which just means you import more than you export, does not have a statistically significant correlation to slower economic growth. Statistics have shown much more correlation between large trade deficits and strong economic growth, but the economy is far more complicated than just considering those basic factors.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall...b380db312d

http://econofact.org/is-the-trade-defici...-on-growth

(07-02-2018 12:36 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 11:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 08:31 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Crazy to me that Trump has moved Republicans to 1980s Dick Gephard style democratic positions on trade. This is an issue Reagan won... he forced the democratic party to move on the issue and now we have republicans celebrating protectionism. It's amazing to me.

Protectionism is not whats going on. Free trade is free trade. If Canada and Europe have tariffs on any of our products---then how exactly is that free trade? Trump has proposed a completely tariff free zone between the nations of the G7. Thats what free trade is. Letting our trading partner exercise protectionism while the US embraces a completely free trade model is simply is a recipe to make jobs the #1 US export.

Does free trade involve removing US Subsidies on oil and agriculture?

A tariff free trading zone in the G7 sounds all fine and dandy, but how does that work when the government hands billions of dollars in direct subsidies to corn producers?

Do you like to eat? Serious question.