Who should get a tax increase?

[Kulindahr]

Another thing is cut all foreign aid except strict humanitarian aid in countries like Ethiopia. Any country sponsoring terrorism or where the government launches deadly revenge attacks should not get funding.

Amendment: foreign humanitarian aid should go directly to the people, so the governments can't skim off it.

Countries like France should be billed for aid given in WW2 and if they don't pay it French assets should be levied just like in any tax bill. What the hell did they do for us anyway? Japan is obviously different.

Um, no. We were in WWII as much for ourselves as for anyone else.

Then the US needs to increase tax at the airports and at border stations - exit tax. If foreigners want to come they can but when they leave they get to pay it. Many other countries have this and it is not too onerous to tourists who can afford to come anyway. Make it within reason maybe 30 bucks. With the low dollar there are 10's of millions of foreign visitors each year to the US now ...maybe 100's of millions. and you multiply that by 30 and it's a nice addition. An exit tax if you want to call it that.
Another thing US needs to do is tax money leaving the country much more aggressively. If Jaime Rojas illegal alien of Saltillo who works in XYZ Cement company in San Antonio want to "send money to Mexico to help his family" he can do it but the US Government levies say 30%. Not unreasonable since he's illegal anyway. The money he sends can thus benefit both his family and the people of the USA.

Call it a "border crossing processing fee".

For illegals -- the guides (whatever they call them; I'm blanking) charge as much as four or five grand to get someone into the U.S., with no refunds if anyone has to run. Well, just change the law so anyone wanting a work visa, and can pay $2500, they get a green card for one year, extendable so long as they have a job and don't get themselves in jail.

If the government knows that XYZ Cement has illegals in its employ, they should seize 1% of the company's worth for every illegal.

For the other -- no. Slash what they're sending back to their families and you get more of them trying to come north. We'd be better off giving tax breaks to companies which move factories from Asia to Mexico, providing jobs in Mexico so their people stay home.

And meanwhile, if we're letting their shippers come across the border, their trucks should have to meet our safety standards, or face stiff fines.

 

[Spiff]

Who are the jokers who voted to tax the poorest more? That certainly would be a productive and effective choice.

 

[Kulindahr]

I am familiar with the salvationists. To stay in their centers you must convert to their religion. Only heterosexual married people are allowed to be ordained.

They cannot receive federal funds because they are a religious movement.

I had to stay at one of their places once. I spent a fair amount of time correcting their warped interpretation of the Bible. I also learned that nine out of ten of the people who stay there are "converted" only while they're inside those four walls.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/index.htm

For every one dollar cut in the food stamp program, there will be two dollars taken out of the economy. That dollar that goes to food cannot go to buying clothing and shoes, which create jobs through retail sales and production.

Food stamps is one of the few social programs that actually has a positive economic effect. According to a joint-house Congressional study some years back, most social spending actually sucks money from the economy. Where many do have a positive effect, though, is on other government or hidden expenditures, e.g. medical and law enforcement.

Many of the programs in effect have been created by capitalist lawmakers minds for very targeted and specific reasons. the ones that stick are the ones that increase job creation while making retail spending rise. That balance serves the worker and the owner in an equitable way. Capitalism flourishes. Companies expand and their value on the stock market expand.

Republicans want you to think this is socialist.

it is NOT.

In a socialist system, the gov't would build factories, and make products for sale and create jobs directly. They would use the sale of the product to directly pay the worker.

In a broad definition it's socialism, because it's "wealth redistribution". But charging interest on loans is also wealth redistribution, and the fact that in many places the poor are charged more for the same services is also wealth redistribution -- in both cases, upwards.

Though the socialism of a certain JUBber wouldn't have government, or companies, or money.....

 

[Kulindahr]

Anyone else seeing only some of the posts on here? I don't have anyone blocked. Annoying because the flow of responses is incomplete.

Well moving on then...

Anyway on corporate taxes I found this:


http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=a6l1lHWq8gXQ


I had always assumed US corporations had a fairly low tax rate compared to other developed countries. But of course the article fails to address tax loopholes and other ways of reducing effective corporate tax paid. Sure they may pay it and the stats register as such but then they get credits or rebates. I don't think those statistics are sensitive to that and so don't really net it out. One only has to look at GE where they avoided billions in taxes....
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html

Of course the "reasons" there are cronyism and some outright fraud.

That Germany has a higher rate is believable ...but then they lump Morocco in there (Morocco???? What's next? Swaziland?)

But one thing you can be sure if taxes are raised on corporations they will cry foul and cite such "statistics" saying they are already paying more than comparable countries...their political action committees or whatever the hell they are will be contributing like mad!!!!

IMO there would be room for raising taxes on corporations but not more than say 10% if that.
But GE has a LOT of political clout in Washington so don't expect any increase!

Corporate taxes should be lowered, not raised. Taxing corporations is regressive in general; the tax money comes from the customers.

I favor a tax rate on purely domestic companies of zero, with no credits except for things that pertain to national security, such as energy independence. From that point, increase the tax rate relative to out-of-country jobs, with a lower rate for jobs in our neighbors Canada and Mexico, somewhat higher for Central America, somewhat higher for South America and allies, and a bunch higher for anywhere else, maxing at 15% minimum and 35% before any credits -- and no credits for any activity outside North America.

 

[Kulindahr]

^Well yeah but the chance of that happening is zero. The US will never have such a tier for the Americas...Belize wouldn't be necessarily treated differently than Guyana or Bolivia for instance. That multi tiering for the western hemisphere isn't practical. You speak of south america and allies...what do you mean.

What's "not practical"? You mean you don't think the government can do arithmetic?
Um, okay, maybe you have a point.

I put allies and S. America on the same rate tier.

Oh -- if you think this is complex, another JUBber proposed a system that would be based on actual miles to ship from a foreign factory to the U.S.

But I agree outside the hemisphere like Europe taxes should go up. A lot. Maybe less for Pacific Rim.
Europe has been totally disappointing in export trade processing development zone promotions.

The Pacific rim is where the real problem is; that's where companies have been sending jobs they take out of the U.S. -- and it's also where they have worse safety and working conditions.

What about Chile and Argentina? Surely you don't propose a different rate between those two countries??? Canada and Mexico make sense tho - their rates should be lowered. It's interesting that Cimentos Mexicanos SA de CV tried to do just that with their own lobbyist in DC years ago. Limited success under Clinton..Telmex does it also....

Chile and Argentina are both in South America. Corporate income from jobs based there would be at the same rate


Here:

U = United States & territories: U% is the rate
N = North American (NAFTA) zone; N% is the rate
C = Central American rate; C% is the rate
S = South American rate; S% is the rate
A = other allies rate; A% is the rate
E = everybody else rate; E% is the rate

Let's say the Funky Widget Company has 18 out of 100 jobs in the U.S., 8 in Mexico, 5 in Canada, 2 in Costa Rica, 3 in Ecuador, 11 in the U.K., 1 in Spain, 6 in Australia, 3 in Japan, 8 in Indonesia, and 35 in China.

Sort that out, and you get 18 in U, 13 in N, 2 in C, 3 in S, 21 in A, and 43 in E. Now let I be their total income taxable in the U.S. Since I rigged it to be percentages of their total jobs, their tax formula would be (.18*I)U% + (.13*I)N% + (.02*I)C% + (.03*I)S% + (.21*I)A% + (.43*I)E%.

It looks messy, but it's just middle school math.

And in conjunction with it, I'd say we should work to extend NAFTA southward, slowly -- making sure that safety standards are kept up for transportation.

 

[rotary]

Why not a national sales tax, not a VAT which is hidden, but one that everyone sees when they buy something?

Yup. If the states implemented a 6% national sales tax the federal government would probably see an additional $300 billion in revenue per year. Make it temporary to get the deficit under control, at the very least.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yup. If the states implemented a 6% national sales tax the federal government would probably see an additional $300 billion in revenue per year. Make it temporary to get the deficit under control, at the very least.

You're aware that sales taxes are regressive, right?

 

[rotary]

You're aware that sales taxes are regressive, right?

Yup. But exclude necessities like food, medical payments, etc. And low income earners would receive a monthly tax rebate in the mail. Canada implemented this system in the early 90's and it helped erase our massive deficits before we went bankrupt. It now brings in over $30 billion for us at 5%.

Americans already pay hidden federal sales taxes on many items anyway. Gasoline, airline tickets, alcohol, tobacco, worker's comp taxes, unemployment taxes, hotel rooms, utilities, severance, insurance premiums, certain licences, etc. It's been estimated that Americans pay $2462 per capita a year in hidden taxes. How many low income earners receive rebates for this unseen taxation?

It's political suicide for the party that implements this, and yes it will hurt some consumers, but look at your books. Debt to GDP ratio is now worse than it was during the great depression. Tax cuts to the wealthy and corporate reductions isn't working.

This might not be the best option, but when you have corporate america influencing policy, it is something to toss out there for debate.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yup. But exclude necessities like food, medical payments, etc. And low income earners would receive a monthly tax rebate in the mail. Canada implemented this system in the early 90's and it helped erase our massive deficits before we went bankrupt. It now brings in over $30 billion for us at 5%.

Americans already pay hidden federal sales taxes on many items anyway. Gasoline, airline tickets, alcohol, tobacco, worker's comp taxes, unemployment taxes, hotel rooms, utilities, severance, insurance premiums, certain licences, etc. It's been estimated that Americans pay $2462 per capita a year in hidden taxes. How many low income earners receive rebates for this unseen taxation?

It's political suicide for the party that implements this, and yes it will hurt some consumers, but look at your books. Debt to GDP ratio is now worse than it was during the great depression. Tax cuts to the wealthy and corporate reductions isn't working.

This might not be the best option, but when you have corporate america influencing policy, it is something to toss out there for debate.

Interesting. I'm going to have to ponder the rebate idea.

 

[Kulindahr]

Tommyrot.

Most of the money saved got gambled on Wall Street, and evaporated after the downturn.

What a sheep you are.

Or went to overseas banks to find enterprises in other countries.

I have yet to see a study since the 70s that shows the super-wealthy putting sudden windfalls -- which what a tax break is, functionally -- into production in this country. It goes to financial games or overseas, or occasionally into charitable foundations.

When you get people whose annuals income is greater than the lifetime income of the bottom third of the population, economic behavior undergoes something of a phase change. In fact once people reach a point where it's easier to make money by moving money from one place to another than by actually producing anything, behavior changes.

Right now, gas prices are high again. Last time, prices were partly driven by speculators; this time is no different. Where does the money for speculating come from? From the super-wealthy. What does it accomplish? It drives up prices for the people who can't afford to have them go up
The result is harmful economic behavior, behavior that generates wealth for the few with piles of it already. That behavior makes those with less unable to buy as many things. That means less demand, and when demand drops, so do jobs.

Giving tax breaks to the uber-wealthy is BAD for the economy.

 

[evanrick]

The only thing from keeping the underclass from completely "robbing" rich people, is republicans -and many democrats- in congress.

Voters are so blind to what their congress actually represents, they are more worried about birth certificates to notice.

Our democracy has become so manipulated by the wealthy elite and business, that even with 75-85% support for ANYTHING, congress is still opposed.

Does anyone see anything wrong with that?