Tarrifs are a double edges sword. Putting tarrifs on our imports often leads to tarrifs on our exports.
I would prefer to work with companies to keep that from happening. Taxing them more will only make them leave.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
Ok, if the companies will actually work with the American people. As far as I can see though such talks would probably be unsuccessful. You see unlike physical goods there is no way to detect the importation of say software code. It can be sent back and forth through the Internet encrypted and undetected. Thus, enforcement of any agreements would probably be near impossible.
Maybe we should find out why jobs are going over seas. I bet there is more too it than low wages.
imagine the interest payments on that $7 trillion debt
half of all US bonds are purchased by foreigners
imagine if they weren't keeping us afloat!
half of all US bonds are purchased by foreigners
imagine if they weren't keeping us afloat!
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
Government red tape is probably another reason. Especially regarding payroll taxes, employment regulations and the like. A software engineer in India can be had for $11,000 a year, plus no red tape or regulations. Or at least a lot less than in the U.S.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
And when the big corporations, and their dollars, are gone who is going to subsidize the starting over?
How about we cut spending BEFORE we cut taxes?
The biggest problem is not that taxes are too low or spending is too high, it's that taxes and spending are decoupled. That means that there is no downward pressure on spending, because the politicians don't have to raise taxes every time they raise spending. So there is only positive feedback on spending, which is that politicians who bring home the bacon get reelected. There is no negative feedback of the same politicians getting thrown out of office for raising taxes. Any system that receives only positive and no negative feedback continues to grow out of control, which is what we are seeing with spending.
The biggest problem is not that taxes are too low or spending is too high, it's that taxes and spending are decoupled. That means that there is no downward pressure on spending, because the politicians don't have to raise taxes every time they raise spending. So there is only positive feedback on spending, which is that politicians who bring home the bacon get reelected. There is no negative feedback of the same politicians getting thrown out of office for raising taxes. Any system that receives only positive and no negative feedback continues to grow out of control, which is what we are seeing with spending.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I would agree with that from this point on...but I sure don't want to have taxes increased BEFORE we cut spending.
Good to see people getting tired of the overspending out gov't does though. I'm sure some will whine when their pet issue sees a cut or a reduction in growth(which is a "cut" to democrats) though and then we're still stuck at square one.
CkG
how about?
A budget that is not balanced would require a 3/4 supermajority to pass.
All tax increased would have to pass with the same 3/4 super majority.
I think the fedral budget should work like local budgets the goverment gets to write it but it has to pass an updown vote by everyone and the budget most be balanced or bonds most get a sperate vote.
You will never cut spending until you raise taxes across the board to match that spending. People aren't interested in spending cuts unless they get a lower taxes from them. If you tell people they can have lower taxes without cutting spending, they won't care about spending. It's supply and demand. Which is why I believe everyone should pay some taxes, and that taxes versus total government spending must be a monotonicly increasing function for everyone regardless of tax bracket, and spending increases must result in across the board tax hikes. Every voter needs to feel the negative impact higher government spending in order to get them interested in lower spending.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Bullsh!t. WE CAN CUT SPENDING - regardless of incoming tax dollars, it's just that some seem to give lip service to the deficit and such yet squeal like a b1tch when someone says "cut" if it comes close to touching their pet. Yes - both sides do it, and that's why we need to just do it instead of caving in to the whining of everyone. Either that or just put up with deficits and debt like we have for since most of us have been alive(or longer). Coving the spending problem with tax increase band-aids doesn't fix the problem.
CkG
Edit- charrison- but, but, but....
Worried about jobs going off shore? You should be. I work in the emp;loyment field at the state level, and it amazzes me how many come in for unemployment compensation because their jobs were sent overseas or to Mexico, a favorite around here.
What companies need is a disencentive for going off shore. Tax them by the UN for providing global protection and services to third world countries. Make the tax equvelent to costs of keeping jobs on soverign soil. Then corporations might need to adjust their loyalty to the people who serve them best. If they shelter profits in the caymenesque banks to avoid taxes, let the camenesque banks keep 97% for rthe cost of doing business "offshore".
Hell, I think I'll pass that on to the democratic party as a platform idea at the democratic convention.
What companies need is a disencentive for going off shore. Tax them by the UN for providing global protection and services to third world countries. Make the tax equvelent to costs of keeping jobs on soverign soil. Then corporations might need to adjust their loyalty to the people who serve them best. If they shelter profits in the caymenesque banks to avoid taxes, let the camenesque banks keep 97% for rthe cost of doing business "offshore".
Hell, I think I'll pass that on to the democratic party as a platform idea at the democratic convention.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Bullsh!t. WE CAN CUT SPENDING - regardless of incoming tax dollars, it's just that some seem to give lip service to the deficit and such yet squeal like a b1tch when someone says "cut" if it comes close to touching their pet. Yes - both sides do it, and that's why we need to just do it instead of caving in to the whining of everyone. Either that or just put up with deficits and debt like we have for since most of us have been alive(or longer). Coving the spending problem with tax increase band-aids doesn't fix the problem.
CkG
Edit- charrison- but, but, but....
Cutting spending is just going to happen. It would be like trying to get a teenage girl with daddys credit card to reduce spending. As long as congress/president don't have to pay for x during thier term they will see no reason to cut x.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Bullsh!t. WE CAN CUT SPENDING - regardless of incoming tax dollars, it's just that some seem to give lip service to the deficit and such yet squeal like a b1tch when someone says "cut" if it comes close to touching their pet. Yes - both sides do it, and that's why we need to just do it instead of caving in to the whining of everyone. Either that or just put up with deficits and debt like we have for since most of us have been alive(or longer). Coving the spending problem with tax increase band-aids doesn't fix the problem.
CkG
Edit- charrison- but, but, but....
OK, keep telling yourself that. Notice when Clinton made balanced budgets a priority, spending went up slowly. With Bush's deficit free for all, it's exploding out of control. Coincidence?
If you have only two choices when voting, low taxes with low spending or high taxes with high spending, you'll have on average medium taxes and medium spending.
If you add high spending and low taxes as a choice, that's what you'll get. High-spending low taxes will beat out both low spending low taxes and high spending high taxes.
It basically comes down to a choice.
1. something for something
2. nothing for nothing
3. something for nothing
and 3 will always win. That is why you will never get low spending with deficits. Those offering both high government spending and low taxes will have an advantage not only over those offering high spending and high taxes, but also those offering low spending and low taxes.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Bullsh!t. WE CAN CUT SPENDING - regardless of incoming tax dollars, it's just that some seem to give lip service to the deficit and such yet squeal like a b1tch when someone says "cut" if it comes close to touching their pet. Yes - both sides do it, and that's why we need to just do it instead of caving in to the whining of everyone. Either that or just put up with deficits and debt like we have for since most of us have been alive(or longer). Coving the spending problem with tax increase band-aids doesn't fix the problem.
CkG
Edit- charrison- but, but, but....
Cutting spending is just going to happen. It would be like trying to get a teenage girl with daddys credit card to reduce spending. As long as congress/president don't have to pay for x during thier term they will see no reason to cut x.
I wouldn't be so sure.
We just have to deliver Bush and a few more seats to be able to push real reform through.
CkG
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Bullsh!t. WE CAN CUT SPENDING - regardless of incoming tax dollars, it's just that some seem to give lip service to the deficit and such yet squeal like a b1tch when someone says "cut" if it comes close to touching their pet. Yes - both sides do it, and that's why we need to just do it instead of caving in to the whining of everyone. Either that or just put up with deficits and debt like we have for since most of us have been alive(or longer). Coving the spending problem with tax increase band-aids doesn't fix the problem.
CkG
Edit- charrison- but, but, but....
Cutting spending is just going to happen. It would be like trying to get a teenage girl with daddys credit card to reduce spending. As long as congress/president don't have to pay for x during thier term they will see no reason to cut x.
I wouldn't be so sure.
We just have to deliver Bush and a few more seats to be able to push real reform through.
CkG
That is some real reform reducing the size of the increase of 16% of the budget.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Bullsh!t. WE CAN CUT SPENDING - regardless of incoming tax dollars, it's just that some seem to give lip service to the deficit and such yet squeal like a b1tch when someone says "cut" if it comes close to touching their pet. Yes - both sides do it, and that's why we need to just do it instead of caving in to the whining of everyone. Either that or just put up with deficits and debt like we have for since most of us have been alive(or longer). Coving the spending problem with tax increase band-aids doesn't fix the problem.
CkG
Edit- charrison- but, but, but....
Cutting spending is just going to happen. It would be like trying to get a teenage girl with daddys credit card to reduce spending. As long as congress/president don't have to pay for x during thier term they will see no reason to cut x.
I wouldn't be so sure.
We just have to deliver Bush and a few more seats to be able to push real reform through.
CkG
That is some real reform reducing the size of the increase of 16% of the budget.
Better than nothing though - no? But really - don't think they won't try for more once they are successful the first time
CkG
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter