Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Our decadent society
Author Message
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #41
RE: Our decadent society
(03-10-2020 11:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 07:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There is a term used in Australia, "tallest daisy syndrome," referring to the feeling that anyone who has achieved greater success and wealth has done so by taking from the rest, and needs to be cut down to the same size as everyone else. In a closed system, perhaps the only way to achieve wealth is to steal it. But an open loop system allows for the creation of wealth, and all benefit.
Take a transaction with WalMart, since the Waltons seem to be favorite whipping boys of the left. Say WalMart is selling a bar of soap for $2. You want the soap more than you want $2, and WalMart wants your $2 more than they want to keep the soap. So you buy the soap and the Waltons got richer, but you are better off too.
If we are to improve as a society, we have to value innovation and entrepreneurship. That means that we have to embrace the concept that is you build a better mousetrap, then it is entirely appropriate for you to experience financial gains as a result. Otherwise, people lose interest in trying to build better mousetraps.
I have often said that I would never want to live in Utopia. Why not? Because in that society, no innovation or improvement would ever happen.
The assumption of your first paragraph is an aberration of perspective. When business was contained just within the U.S. opening markets made it appear to be true. But now that trade is global we are finding just how closed of a system that is too.
Your Walmart illustration leaves me flat as well. When Sam Walton was alive and the goods were made in the U.S. and his chain of stores thrived because of sound employee / employer relationships the image of the company was built. When it became a major corporation and Sam died and they discovered they could make more with overseas sweatshops making nails and screws, and clothing and shoes, and cheaper soap, and when they discovered that via the lobby they could get a 50% reduction on local property tax to locate a store, and get to keep the state's portion of the sales tax in order to build their buildings, then it became a matter of power and not better or cheaper soap. They cleared all of their normal overhead in locating courtesy of the taxpayers of the state, who never lent their approval which was merely bought at the state level through campaign donations. Then Wal Mart could sell that bar of soap made overseas and in a building they didn't pay for, and on property they only paid half the taxes on, while local private business men who had to buy their own buildings and pay the full measure of sales taxes, and who didn't have sweat shops overseas to make cheaper soap, had to try to compete with a 13 point disadvantage for actually paying their taxes and supporting our ways of life.
And because Walmart did it, Home Depot, Lowes, Bed Bath and Beyond and every other big box chain learned to do it as well and because of that the citizens of the communities in which the stores are located all paid more in property taxes to support the emergency services and schools that were once supported by private business. So in the end that damn bar of soap cost the consumer far more than they ever realized. And as these companies got larger and more profitable they bought power at the Federal level and what once looked like an open market just became a global market that was just as closed as the national market once was and the lobby money instead of merely corrupting state representatives started corrupting Federal representatives and to the point that the common man in the local community no longer has a voice in state or Federal government.
And the Tech and Defense industries dwarf in their positions and power the Walmarts of the world.
And that sir isn't just syllogism, but the damned reality of that $2 bar of soap. And it is the real life conclusion of a lousy analogy.

With respect to the bolded part, is it WalMart's fault for taking advantage of that situation, or is it the fault of whoever created that situation? As Peter Zeehan notes, at Bretton Woods we bribed up an alliance to win the Cold War by promising the rest of the world easy access to our markets (without reciprocation) and protection of their supply chains, courtesy of the US Navy (the only fleet left afloat in 1945), in exchange for their agreement to do whatever we told them to fight the Cold War. That paradigm worked well for about 45 years--both US and our allies experienced significant economic growth and relative peace. It had some flaws--the Royal Navy's adherence to our direction that they become an ASW force in the GIUK gap left them ill prepared for the Falklands--but they muddled through there, and on the whole it was very successful. Only problem, it worked too well, and when the Berlin Wall came down, we didn't have a plan B. We had built a foreign policy based upon security instead of economic concerns, so we sacrificed a lot on the economic side to beat the Russkis, but that wasn't well designed to work after events of 1989-94 or so.

Ross Perot was wrong on a lot, but he nailed a few things. In the post-Cold-War, economic power was going to become more important than military power, and we needed to adopt some measures to increase our economic power. We haven't migrated to a new paradigm yet. We can't match the labor costs of a number of third world countries. But they can't match the productivity of US workers, and if we oriented our education system to place more emphasis on vocational skills, that gap would shift even more in our favor.

There are places that pay starvation wages and don't observe much in the way of environmental and workers safety regulations. We still have to compete with those places, but not by doing what they do. We have to maximize the benefits of what we do. We have the largest market in the world, and we can broaden that with trade agreements. We can implement a comprehensive welfare safety net, which reduces the risk to innovators and entrepreneurs and also reduces or eliminates a major health care cost to US businesses, but if we pay for it by overtaxing the "rich" (and I would define overtaxing as significantly higher than worldwide rates) we are simply going to drive away the very investment, growth, and jobs that we want. We can have the best trained work force (and that is vocational training, not everybody going to universities), and make up for cost with productivity. We can have the best infrastructure. We can have more favorable tax laws. We can implement a consumption tax that acts as a tariff on imports and a subsidy on exports. Those are things that we can do to make ourselves more competitive and seriously grow our economy even more.

I disagree with Perot on NAFTA. He was actually a big free trade proponent. He spent a ton of money and called in a bunch of favors to get the area around Alliance Airport (north of Fort Worth, near the NASCAR track) declared a free trade zone. Problem was that NAFTA greatly reduced the economic advantage of Alliance, so he opposed it.
(This post was last modified: 03-10-2020 12:38 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
03-10-2020 12:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Our decadent society
(03-10-2020 12:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 11:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 07:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There is a term used in Australia, "tallest daisy syndrome," referring to the feeling that anyone who has achieved greater success and wealth has done so by taking from the rest, and needs to be cut down to the same size as everyone else. In a closed system, perhaps the only way to achieve wealth is to steal it. But an open loop system allows for the creation of wealth, and all benefit.
Take a transaction with WalMart, since the Waltons seem to be favorite whipping boys of the left. Say WalMart is selling a bar of soap for $2. You want the soap more than you want $2, and WalMart wants your $2 more than they want to keep the soap. So you buy the soap and the Waltons got richer, but you are better off too.
If we are to improve as a society, we have to value innovation and entrepreneurship. That means that we have to embrace the concept that is you build a better mousetrap, then it is entirely appropriate for you to experience financial gains as a result. Otherwise, people lose interest in trying to build better mousetraps.
I have often said that I would never want to live in Utopia. Why not? Because in that society, no innovation or improvement would ever happen.
The assumption of your first paragraph is an aberration of perspective. When business was contained just within the U.S. opening markets made it appear to be true. But now that trade is global we are finding just how closed of a system that is too.
Your Walmart illustration leaves me flat as well. When Sam Walton was alive and the goods were made in the U.S. and his chain of stores thrived because of sound employee / employer relationships the image of the company was built. When it became a major corporation and Sam died and they discovered they could make more with overseas sweatshops making nails and screws, and clothing and shoes, and cheaper soap, and when they discovered that via the lobby they could get a 50% reduction on local property tax to locate a store, and get to keep the state's portion of the sales tax in order to build their buildings, then it became a matter of power and not better or cheaper soap. They cleared all of their normal overhead in locating courtesy of the taxpayers of the state, who never lent their approval which was merely bought at the state level through campaign donations. Then Wal Mart could sell that bar of soap made overseas and in a building they didn't pay for, and on property they only paid half the taxes on, while local private business men who had to buy their own buildings and pay the full measure of sales taxes, and who didn't have sweat shops overseas to make cheaper soap, had to try to compete with a 13 point disadvantage for actually paying their taxes and supporting our ways of life.
And because Walmart did it, Home Depot, Lowes, Bed Bath and Beyond and every other big box chain learned to do it as well and because of that the citizens of the communities in which the stores are located all paid more in property taxes to support the emergency services and schools that were once supported by private business. So in the end that damn bar of soap cost the consumer far more than they ever realized. And as these companies got larger and more profitable they bought power at the Federal level and what once looked like an open market just became a global market that was just as closed as the national market once was and the lobby money instead of merely corrupting state representatives started corrupting Federal representatives and to the point that the common man in the local community no longer has a voice in state or Federal government.
And the Tech and Defense industries dwarf in their positions and power the Walmarts of the world.
And that sir isn't just syllogism, but the damned reality of that $2 bar of soap. And it is the real life conclusion of a lousy analogy.

With respect to the bolded part, is it WalMart's fault for taking advantage of that situation, or is it the fault of whoever created that situation? As Peter Zeehan notes, at Bretton Woods we bribed up an alliance to win the Cold War by promising the rest of the world easy access to our markets (without reciprocation) and protection of their supply chains, courtesy of the US Navy (the only fleet left afloat in 1945), in exchange for their agreement to do whatever we told them to fight the Cold War. That paradigm worked well for about 45 years--both US and our allies experienced significant economic growth and relative peace. It had some flaws--the Royal Navy's adherence to our direction that they become an ASW force in the GIUK gap left them ill prepared for the Falklands--but they muddled through there, and on the whole it was very successful. Only problem, it worked too well, and when the Berlin Wall came down, we didn't have a plan B. We had built a foreign policy based upon security instead of economic concerns, so we sacrificed a lot on the economic side to beat the Russkis, but that wasn't well designed to work after events of 1989-94 or so.

Ross Perot was wrong on a lot, but he nailed a few things. In the post-Cold-War, economic power was going to become more important than military power, and we needed to adopt some measures to increase our economic power. We haven't migrated to a new paradigm yet. We can't match the labor costs of a number of third world countries. But they can't match the productivity of US workers, and if we oriented our education system to place more emphasis on vocational skills, that gap would shift even more in our favor.

There are places that pay starvation wages and don't observe much in the way of environmental and workers safety regulations. We still have to compete with those places, but not by doing what they do. We have to maximize the benefits of what we do. We have the largest market in the world, and we can broaden that with trade agreements. We can implement a comprehensive welfare safety net, which reduces the risk to innovators and entrepreneurs and also reduces or eliminates a major health care cost to US businesses, but if we pay for it by overtaxing the "rich" (and I would define overtaxing as significantly higher than worldwide rates) we are simply going to drive away the very investment, growth, and jobs that we want. We can have the best trained work force (and that is vocational training, not everybody going to universities), and make up for cost with productivity. We can have the best infrastructure. We can have more favorable tax laws. We can implement a consumption tax that acts as a tariff on imports and a subsidy on exports. Those are things that we can do to make ourselves more competitive and seriously grow our economy even more.

I disagree with Perot on NAFTA. He was actually a big free trade proponent. He spent a ton of money and called in a bunch of favors to get the area around Alliance Airport (north of Fort Worth, near the NASCAR track) declared a free trade zone. Problem was that NAFTA greatly reduced the economic advantage of Alliance, so he opposed it.

You need to get your nose out of a book and pound pavement visiting private businesses and spend some time finding out about the political perks being offered to the corporate leviathans.

Size and power are the weapons that kill innovation, especially when coupled with a court system where the little guy goes bankrupt fighting for his/her intellectual property.

There is nothing that is lever or fair in the current economic system. It is the corruption within the systems that led to the overseas sweatshops and whether Walmart invented those or merely profited by them is irrelevant. Those existed due to international trade agreements that were attained by lobby in Washington and became mainstream under both parties. Whose guiltier the first slave owner or the last slave owner?

You've spent enough time within the beltway system that your viewpoint of the world is polluted by their thinking. I on the other hand spent 20 years helping private business formulate plans for survival and to adapt their inventories to remain relevant.

The destruction of local tax bases by corporate chains has been massive. The acquisition of property and buildings at taxpayer expense continues. The sales tax perks last until the building is paid for. When it is Walmart moves 2 miles down the road and gets another commercial property at tax payer expense. This isn't capitalism Owl. This is corruption. Only when it profits the corporation and lines the pockets of politicians none dare call it that.
03-10-2020 01:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #43
RE: Our decadent society
(03-10-2020 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You need to get your nose out of a book and pound pavement visiting private businesses and spend some time finding out about the political perks being offered to the corporate leviathans.
Size and power are the weapons that kill innovation, especially when coupled with a court system where the little guy goes bankrupt fighting for his/her intellectual property.
There is nothing that is lever or fair in the current economic system. It is the corruption within the systems that led to the overseas sweatshops and whether Walmart invented those or merely profited by them is irrelevant. Those existed due to international trade agreements that were attained by lobby in Washington and became mainstream under both parties. Whose guiltier the first slave owner or the last slave owner?
You've spent enough time within the beltway system that your viewpoint of the world is polluted by their thinking. I on the other hand spent 20 years helping private business formulate plans for survival and to adapt their inventories to remain relevant.
The destruction of local tax bases by corporate chains has been massive. The acquisition of property and buildings at taxpayer expense continues. The sales tax perks last until the building is paid for. When it is Walmart moves 2 miles down the road and gets another commercial property at tax payer expense. This isn't capitalism Owl. This is corruption. Only when it profits the corporation and lines the pockets of politicians none dare call it that.

But here's the thing. We have set up an unfavorable economic climate in several areas--tax, regulation principally among them. Partly this was Bretton Woods, and partly this was because the Europeans and others got a lot better at setting up pro-growth policies than we did. So congress and legislators and local officials have the power to grant loopholes to favored businesses to keep them here in the USA. All I'm saying is let's level the playing field with the world, and then those perks aren't needed.
03-10-2020 01:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Our decadent society
(03-10-2020 01:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You need to get your nose out of a book and pound pavement visiting private businesses and spend some time finding out about the political perks being offered to the corporate leviathans.
Size and power are the weapons that kill innovation, especially when coupled with a court system where the little guy goes bankrupt fighting for his/her intellectual property.
There is nothing that is lever or fair in the current economic system. It is the corruption within the systems that led to the overseas sweatshops and whether Walmart invented those or merely profited by them is irrelevant. Those existed due to international trade agreements that were attained by lobby in Washington and became mainstream under both parties. Whose guiltier the first slave owner or the last slave owner?
You've spent enough time within the beltway system that your viewpoint of the world is polluted by their thinking. I on the other hand spent 20 years helping private business formulate plans for survival and to adapt their inventories to remain relevant.
The destruction of local tax bases by corporate chains has been massive. The acquisition of property and buildings at taxpayer expense continues. The sales tax perks last until the building is paid for. When it is Walmart moves 2 miles down the road and gets another commercial property at tax payer expense. This isn't capitalism Owl. This is corruption. Only when it profits the corporation and lines the pockets of politicians none dare call it that.

But here's the thing. We have set up an unfavorable economic climate in several areas--tax, regulation principally among them. Partly this was Bretton Woods, and partly this was because the Europeans and others got a lot better at setting up pro-growth policies than we did. So congress and legislators and local officials have the power to grant loopholes to favored businesses to keep them here in the USA. All I'm saying is let's level the playing field with the world, and then those perks aren't needed.

That only happens with either a quasi formal world trade system or some approximation of a global government. And when it does instead of corporations lining the pockets of Congress to get perks they will line the pockets of the new governing structure for them. How fair is the United Nations on simple political matters? The UN is about as corrupted as a rotting corpse.
(This post was last modified: 03-10-2020 01:24 PM by JRsec.)
03-10-2020 01:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #45
RE: Our decadent society
(03-10-2020 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 01:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But here's the thing. We have set up an unfavorable economic climate in several areas--tax, regulation principally among them. Partly this was Bretton Woods, and partly this was because the Europeans and others got a lot better at setting up pro-growth policies than we did. So congress and legislators and local officials have the power to grant loopholes to favored businesses to keep them here in the USA. All I'm saying is let's level the playing field with the world, and then those perks aren't needed.
That only happens with either a quasi formal world trade system or some approximation of a global government. And when it does instead of corporations lining the pockets of Congress to get perks they will line the pockets of the new governing structure for them. How fair is the United Nations on simple political matters? The UN is about as corrupted as a rotting corpse.

As long as you have somebody in control of who gets money, money is going to try to control whoever that is. The way to get money out of politics is to get politics out of money.

The biggest step we could take to level the playing field is to implement a consumption tax. That automatically taxes imports and subsidizes exports. Every other developed country does it, so why don't we?
(This post was last modified: 03-10-2020 01:48 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
03-10-2020 01:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Our decadent society
(03-10-2020 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 01:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But here's the thing. We have set up an unfavorable economic climate in several areas--tax, regulation principally among them. Partly this was Bretton Woods, and partly this was because the Europeans and others got a lot better at setting up pro-growth policies than we did. So congress and legislators and local officials have the power to grant loopholes to favored businesses to keep them here in the USA. All I'm saying is let's level the playing field with the world, and then those perks aren't needed.
That only happens with either a quasi formal world trade system or some approximation of a global government. And when it does instead of corporations lining the pockets of Congress to get perks they will line the pockets of the new governing structure for them. How fair is the United Nations on simple political matters? The UN is about as corrupted as a rotting corpse.

As long as you have somebody in control of who gets money, money is going to try to control whoever that is. The way to get money out of politics is to get politics out of money.

The biggest step we could take to level the playing field is to implement a consumption tax. That automatically taxes imports and subsidizes exports. Every other developed country does it, so why don't we?

If the consumption tax replaced state and federal income tax, then I have no problem with that. I also don't have a problem with ad valorem taxes. The problem is consumption taxes are considered regressive because there is a baseline for human needs for clothing and food. So if you excluded food from the consumption tax we ought to be able to live with the rest. But I would bet that tax would have to be around 25% to 30% to keep the expected revenue about the same.
03-10-2020 04:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #47
RE: Our decadent society
(03-10-2020 04:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 01:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But here's the thing. We have set up an unfavorable economic climate in several areas--tax, regulation principally among them. Partly this was Bretton Woods, and partly this was because the Europeans and others got a lot better at setting up pro-growth policies than we did. So congress and legislators and local officials have the power to grant loopholes to favored businesses to keep them here in the USA. All I'm saying is let's level the playing field with the world, and then those perks aren't needed.
That only happens with either a quasi formal world trade system or some approximation of a global government. And when it does instead of corporations lining the pockets of Congress to get perks they will line the pockets of the new governing structure for them. How fair is the United Nations on simple political matters? The UN is about as corrupted as a rotting corpse.
As long as you have somebody in control of who gets money, money is going to try to control whoever that is. The way to get money out of politics is to get politics out of money.
The biggest step we could take to level the playing field is to implement a consumption tax. That automatically taxes imports and subsidizes exports. Every other developed country does it, so why don't we?
If the consumption tax replaced state and federal income tax, then I have no problem with that. I also don't have a problem with ad valorem taxes. The problem is consumption taxes are considered regressive because there is a baseline for human needs for clothing and food. So if you excluded food from the consumption tax we ought to be able to live with the rest. But I would bet that tax would have to be around 25% to 30% to keep the expected revenue about the same.

15% across the board, with the Boortz-Linder predate/prefund to handle the poor, and 15% business/investment tax and 15% social security (7.5%/7.5%) with zero individual income tax, balances the budget.
03-10-2020 04:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Our decadent society
(03-10-2020 04:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 04:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 01:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But here's the thing. We have set up an unfavorable economic climate in several areas--tax, regulation principally among them. Partly this was Bretton Woods, and partly this was because the Europeans and others got a lot better at setting up pro-growth policies than we did. So congress and legislators and local officials have the power to grant loopholes to favored businesses to keep them here in the USA. All I'm saying is let's level the playing field with the world, and then those perks aren't needed.
That only happens with either a quasi formal world trade system or some approximation of a global government. And when it does instead of corporations lining the pockets of Congress to get perks they will line the pockets of the new governing structure for them. How fair is the United Nations on simple political matters? The UN is about as corrupted as a rotting corpse.
As long as you have somebody in control of who gets money, money is going to try to control whoever that is. The way to get money out of politics is to get politics out of money.
The biggest step we could take to level the playing field is to implement a consumption tax. That automatically taxes imports and subsidizes exports. Every other developed country does it, so why don't we?
If the consumption tax replaced state and federal income tax, then I have no problem with that. I also don't have a problem with ad valorem taxes. The problem is consumption taxes are considered regressive because there is a baseline for human needs for clothing and food. So if you excluded food from the consumption tax we ought to be able to live with the rest. But I would bet that tax would have to be around 25% to 30% to keep the expected revenue about the same.

15% across the board, with the Boortz-Linder predate/prefund to handle the poor, and 15% business/investment tax and 15% social security (7.5%/7.5%) with zero individual income tax, balances the budget.

Wouldn't that encourage personal savings and discourage spending? If so would that not be considered to be counter consumptive? I would think that the resistance would reside in savings vs credit. As a fiscal conservative I would like it. I doubt the corporate world would.
03-10-2020 05:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #49
RE: Our decadent society
(03-10-2020 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 04:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 04:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That only happens with either a quasi formal world trade system or some approximation of a global government. And when it does instead of corporations lining the pockets of Congress to get perks they will line the pockets of the new governing structure for them. How fair is the United Nations on simple political matters? The UN is about as corrupted as a rotting corpse.
As long as you have somebody in control of who gets money, money is going to try to control whoever that is. The way to get money out of politics is to get politics out of money.
The biggest step we could take to level the playing field is to implement a consumption tax. That automatically taxes imports and subsidizes exports. Every other developed country does it, so why don't we?
If the consumption tax replaced state and federal income tax, then I have no problem with that. I also don't have a problem with ad valorem taxes. The problem is consumption taxes are considered regressive because there is a baseline for human needs for clothing and food. So if you excluded food from the consumption tax we ought to be able to live with the rest. But I would bet that tax would have to be around 25% to 30% to keep the expected revenue about the same.
15% across the board, with the Boortz-Linder predate/prefund to handle the poor, and 15% business/investment tax and 15% social security (7.5%/7.5%) with zero individual income tax, balances the budget.
Wouldn't that encourage personal savings and discourage spending? If so would that not be considered to be counter consumptive? I would think that the resistance would reside in savings vs credit. As a fiscal conservative I would like it. I doubt the corporate world would.

To some extent, perhaps, but with our demographic profile we are going to have plenty of consumption for a while. And with that approach we make imports more expensive and exports cheaper, so we should start exporting more, and what we do consume should be a higher percentage domestic. I think corporations would like the tax enough to offset any other concerns.
03-10-2020 05:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Our decadent society
(03-10-2020 05:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 04:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 04:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As long as you have somebody in control of who gets money, money is going to try to control whoever that is. The way to get money out of politics is to get politics out of money.
The biggest step we could take to level the playing field is to implement a consumption tax. That automatically taxes imports and subsidizes exports. Every other developed country does it, so why don't we?
If the consumption tax replaced state and federal income tax, then I have no problem with that. I also don't have a problem with ad valorem taxes. The problem is consumption taxes are considered regressive because there is a baseline for human needs for clothing and food. So if you excluded food from the consumption tax we ought to be able to live with the rest. But I would bet that tax would have to be around 25% to 30% to keep the expected revenue about the same.
15% across the board, with the Boortz-Linder predate/prefund to handle the poor, and 15% business/investment tax and 15% social security (7.5%/7.5%) with zero individual income tax, balances the budget.
Wouldn't that encourage personal savings and discourage spending? If so would that not be considered to be counter consumptive? I would think that the resistance would reside in savings vs credit. As a fiscal conservative I would like it. I doubt the corporate world would.

To some extent, perhaps, but with our demographic profile we are going to have plenty of consumption for a while. And with that approach we make imports more expensive and exports cheaper, so we should start exporting more, and what we do consume should be a higher percentage domestic. I think corporations would like the tax enough to offset any other concerns.

At least it is much less regressive than a flat tax, which is better than what we have. Are you on board with no tax on food?
(This post was last modified: 03-10-2020 05:36 PM by JRsec.)
03-10-2020 05:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #51
RE: Our decadent society
(03-10-2020 05:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 05:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 04:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-10-2020 04:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the consumption tax replaced state and federal income tax, then I have no problem with that. I also don't have a problem with ad valorem taxes. The problem is consumption taxes are considered regressive because there is a baseline for human needs for clothing and food. So if you excluded food from the consumption tax we ought to be able to live with the rest. But I would bet that tax would have to be around 25% to 30% to keep the expected revenue about the same.
15% across the board, with the Boortz-Linder predate/prefund to handle the poor, and 15% business/investment tax and 15% social security (7.5%/7.5%) with zero individual income tax, balances the budget.
Wouldn't that encourage personal savings and discourage spending? If so would that not be considered to be counter consumptive? I would think that the resistance would reside in savings vs credit. As a fiscal conservative I would like it. I doubt the corporate world would.
To some extent, perhaps, but with our demographic profile we are going to have plenty of consumption for a while. And with that approach we make imports more expensive and exports cheaper, so we should start exporting more, and what we do consume should be a higher percentage domestic. I think corporations would like the tax enough to offset any other concerns.
At least it is much less regressive than a flat tax, which is better than what we have. Are you on board with no tax on food?

The Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund offsets the tax on food.
03-10-2020 05:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.