somebody explain to me how high corporate taxes...

[1842BullDog]

First of all.. Let's be clear:
Corporations Do Not Pay Taxes; Consumers Pay Taxes
Corporations collect taxes…

Consumers pay the cost of that “collection” and the cost of the IRS ($300 Billion)

Let's:
1.Repeal the 16th Amendment to the U.S Constitution
2.Pass HR25,S296 FairTax / Consumption tax.
3.Close the IRS

And let's turn the Tax Lawyer’s and CPA’s energy loose on the Federal Government and see what they come up with..?

You and I both know that nothing will ever happen that is TRULY beneficial for the majority of America. I think a consumption tax would be great. I've been to Europe and at first I was pissed when I saw the 19% VAT but then realized that I hadn't seen any potholes and that the social system works (although it's badly abused).

[GannonFan]

That's not even an answer, it's just a rant. Hey, I want the world to be a better place too, and I want economic prosperity for this country too, but wishing for it to happen and having an idea on how to bring it about are two different things. How do we play hard ball with our competitive advantages? What do we do that will make it work?

I spoke with a supplier yesterday who recently traveled to China and warned me that the quality of products in our industry is going to deteriorate rapidly over the next year or so as assembly of products gets moved to China. These are recreational equipment products so no real harm to consumers but this might lend credence to the concerns over toxins found in Chinese made plastics and dog food.

I had another conversation with a client who is a facilities inspector for the USDA and is travelling to Thailand this year to inspect the processing of food imports into the U.S. We have to pay government officias to travel over seas because while we want cheap imports, we can't trust other govenments to make them safe.

How did we ever survive back before free trade when stuff was produced in the good ol' USA?

So one answer is to not allow importers to cheat on quality and safety standards. This would level the playing field for American manufacturers. Another would have been a "buy american" provision in the stimulus and bank bailouts. China required all of their large stimulus package to be spent with Chinese companies.

There are many other things that can be done, and I'm sure you will dismiss them as protectionist without explaining whether or not they will help our cause.

But forget that, go back and tell me how free trade has benefited our economy as a whole. I'm all ears.

Wow, goes to show you, you post long enough and eventually someone will come up with a post like this. Are you related to either Hawley or Smoot? I don't know how else to explain someone's backing of a similar economic notion.

For the record, I'm not pro free trade. If I had a time machine, I agree, going back to the era when the US could dictate terms on trade and benefit tremendously from that position would be great. However, I'm also a realist and it's clear that free trade is not going away. Planning an economy like you lay out where you pull the US from the free trade system and expect there to be no net impact on the US is just fantasy - the genie is out of the bottle, and you can't put it back in and pretend it's not there. Choosing to hide in a shell and to push businesses offshore does nothing for the US in the longterm. Again, there are examples galore over the past century of people doing exactly like you have proposed and every single one of them has failed. Why would it work now? Because we really, really want it to work? Propping up industries that can't compete globally just means you have industries that will fall harder and be more painful when eventually they fail. Erecting trade barriers (whether they be tarriffs or arbitrary quality standards) only invite the same to be done to our companies that make domestically and sell overseas. Seeing how we are import dependent now, that's only going to hurt in the shortterm as well - we're not in the best position for a trade war with the rest of the world. And longterm, companies will continue to keep investment off shore and eventually that will come to roost down the road as our facilities get older and more obsolete.

It's funny, you advocate this policy, but in another thread you bring up Germany as a model to follow. But Germany is fairly open to trade and decidedly on the free trade side of the equation. The reason is because you have to be - it's not a matter of want anymore. It's simply the reality of the world we live in. Germany succeeds in this enivornment not by hiding in a shell - they have a reasonable corporate tax rate (about 10% lower than the US), they deal with repatriation much less harshly than the US, and most importantly they focus on what's ahead and what can succeed in the long term in terms of businesses. Like I said in that thread, they make products that are hard to make elsewhere, they make things in markets where they tend to be the market leaders, and they compete globally on the strength of their product, not artificial, institutional gimmicks. So why do you like that model but then not want to repeat the same here?

In the end, it doesn't matter your idealogical persuasion - free trade, for all of its drawbacks (and to the US there are many) is the rule of th day. If we opt not to play the game, it doesn't mean the game stops - we walk away with our ball, then the rest of the world will just use a different ball and move on. Better to stay in the game, get better, and win.

[houndawg]

I spoke with a supplier yesterday who recently traveled to China and warned me that the quality of products in our industry is going to deteriorate rapidly over the next year or so as assembly of products gets moved to China. These are recreational equipment products so no real harm to consumers but this might lend credence to the concerns over toxins found in Chinese made plastics and dog food.

I had another conversation with a client who is a facilities inspector for the USDA and is travelling to Thailand this year to inspect the processing of food imports into the U.S. We have to pay government officias to travel over seas because while we want cheap imports, we can't trust other govenments to make them safe.

How did we ever survive back before free trade when stuff was produced in the good ol' USA?

So one answer is to not allow importers to cheat on quality and safety standards. This would level the playing field for American manufacturers. Another would have been a "buy american" provision in the stimulus and bank bailouts. China required all of their large stimulus package to be spent with Chinese companies.

There are many other things that can be done, and I'm sure you will dismiss them as protectionist without explaining whether or not they will help our cause.

But forget that, go back and tell me how free trade has benefited our economy as a whole. I'm all ears.

Wow, goes to show you, you post long enough and eventually someone will come up with a post like this. Are you related to either Hawley or Smoot? I don't know how else to explain someone's backing of a similar economic notion.

For the record, I'm not pro free trade. If I had a time machine, I agree, going back to the era when the US could dictate terms on trade and benefit tremendously from that position would be great. However, I'm also a realist and it's clear that free trade is not going away. Planning an economy like you lay out where you pull the US from the free trade system and expect there to be no net impact on the US is just fantasy - the genie is out of the bottle, and you can't put it back in and pretend it's not there. Choosing to hide in a shell and to push businesses offshore does nothing for the US in the longterm. Again, there are examples galore over the past century of people doing exactly like you have proposed and every single one of them has failed. Why would it work now? Because we really, really want it to work? Propping up industries that can't compete globally just means you have industries that will fall harder and be more painful when eventually they fail. Erecting trade barriers (whether they be tarriffs or arbitrary quality standards) only invite the same to be done to our companies that make domestically and sell overseas. Seeing how we are import dependent now, that's only going to hurt in the shortterm as well - we're not in the best position for a trade war with the rest of the world. And longterm, companies will continue to keep investment off shore and eventually that will come to roost down the road as our facilities get older and more obsolete.

It's funny, you advocate this policy, but in another thread you bring up Germany as a model to follow. But Germany is fairly open to trade and decidedly on the free trade side of the equation. The reason is because you have to be - it's not a matter of want anymore. It's simply the reality of the world we live in. Germany succeeds in this enivornment not by hiding in a shell - they have a reasonable corporate tax rate (about 10% lower than the US), they deal with repatriation much less harshly than the US, and most importantly they focus on what's ahead and what can succeed in the long term in terms of businesses. Like I said in that thread, they make products that are hard to make elsewhere, they make things in markets where they tend to be the market leaders, and they compete globally on the strength of their product, not artificial, institutional gimmicks. So why do you like that model but then not want to repeat the same here?

In the end, it doesn't matter your idealogical persuasion - free trade, for all of its drawbacks (and to the US there are many) is the rule of th day. If we opt not to play the game, it doesn't mean the game stops - we walk away with our ball, then the rest of the world will just use a different ball and move on. Better to stay in the game, get better, and win.

Yeah we've really been kicking azz since NAFTA.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

The problem isn't the producers of cheap shit... it's the consumers of it.

Americans demand a $150 lawnmower... and a $300 tv... so, manufacturers churn them out... can't make em that cheap here, where our workers require a living wage and benefits, and we require they not completely destroy the environment in the manufacture process... so - enter a 2nd world country with no qualms about either.

it's called the race to the bottom... and china has the political will (or political repression) to ensure those jobs are theirs... meanwhile americans blame the manufacturers of the cheap shit whilst driving to Wal-Mart to buy a $10 toaster and $350 washing machine (neither of which will last 5 years) completely oblivious to the fact they ARE the problem.

[houndawg]

I spoke with a supplier yesterday who recently traveled to China and warned me that the quality of products in our industry is going to deteriorate rapidly over the next year or so as assembly of products gets moved to China. These are recreational equipment products so no real harm to consumers but this might lend credence to the concerns over toxins found in Chinese made plastics and dog food.

I had another conversation with a client who is a facilities inspector for the USDA and is travelling to Thailand this year to inspect the processing of food imports into the U.S. We have to pay government officias to travel over seas because while we want cheap imports, we can't trust other govenments to make them safe.

How did we ever survive back before free trade when stuff was produced in the good ol' USA?

So one answer is to not allow importers to cheat on quality and safety standards. This would level the playing field for American manufacturers. Another would have been a "buy american" provision in the stimulus and bank bailouts. China required all of their large stimulus package to be spent with Chinese companies.

There are many other things that can be done, and I'm sure you will dismiss them as protectionist without explaining whether or not they will help our cause.

But forget that, go back and tell me how free trade has benefited our economy as a whole. I'm all ears.

Wow, goes to show you, you post long enough and eventually someone will come up with a post like this. Are you related to either Hawley or Smoot? I don't know how else to explain someone's backing of a similar economic notion.

For the record, I'm not pro free trade. If I had a time machine, I agree, going back to the era when the US could dictate terms on trade and benefit tremendously from that position would be great. However, I'm also a realist and it's clear that free trade is not going away. Planning an economy like you lay out where you pull the US from the free trade system and expect there to be no net impact on the US is just fantasy - the genie is out of the bottle, and you can't put it back in and pretend it's not there. Choosing to hide in a shell and to push businesses offshore does nothing for the US in the longterm. Again, there are examples galore over the past century of people doing exactly like you have proposed and every single one of them has failed. Why would it work now? Because we really, really want it to work? Propping up industries that can't compete globally just means you have industries that will fall harder and be more painful when eventually they fail. Erecting trade barriers (whether they be tarriffs or arbitrary quality standards) only invite the same to be done to our companies that make domestically and sell overseas. Seeing how we are import dependent now, that's only going to hurt in the shortterm as well - we're not in the best position for a trade war with the rest of the world. And longterm, companies will continue to keep investment off shore and eventually that will come to roost down the road as our facilities get older and more obsolete.

It's funny, you advocate this policy, but in another thread you bring up Germany as a model to follow. But Germany is fairly open to trade and decidedly on the free trade side of the equation. The reason is because you have to be - it's not a matter of want anymore. It's simply the reality of the world we live in. Germany succeeds in this enivornment not by hiding in a shell - they have a reasonable corporate tax rate (about 10% lower than the US), they deal with repatriation much less harshly than the US, and most importantly they focus on what's ahead and what can succeed in the long term in terms of businesses. Like I said in that thread, they make products that are hard to make elsewhere, they make things in markets where they tend to be the market leaders, and they compete globally on the strength of their product, not artificial, institutional gimmicks. So why do you like that model but then not want to repeat the same here?

In the end, it doesn't matter your idealogical persuasion - free trade, for all of its drawbacks (and to the US there are many) is the rule of th day. If we opt not to play the game, it doesn't mean the game stops - we walk away with our ball, then the rest of the world will just use a different ball and move on. Better to stay in the game, get better, and win.

Germany has a higher corporate tax rate if you count the loopholes in the US structure, strong unions, and a thriving auto industry, which can be made anywhere.

[Chizzang]

The problem isn't the producers of cheap shit... it's the consumers of it.

Americans demand a $150 lawnmower... and a $300 tv... so, manufacturers churn them out... can't make em that cheap here, where our workers require a living wage and benefits, and we require they not completely destroy the environment in the manufacture process... so - enter a 2nd world country with no qualms about either.

it's called the race to the bottom... and china has the political will (or political repression) to ensure those jobs are theirs... meanwhile americans blame the manufacturers of the cheap shit whilst driving to Wal-Mart to buy a $10 toaster and $350 washing machine (neither of which will last 5 years) completely oblivious to the fact they ARE the problem.

I agree only in part with this...
The demand for "cheap sh!t" is a development of Rampant Consumerism as the prevailing American ideology

Once we lived in an America where people were willing to "have less" stuff
but wanted good stuff when they did decide to own something...
Quality things had "value" and were built to last and "saving to buy" was the rule of the day - Today we have become "Wal-Mart" it defines who we are and how we buy- this can't even be debated...


and I'm perfectly cool with it... things change - and - so what

[kalm]

I spoke with a supplier yesterday who recently traveled to China and warned me that the quality of products in our industry is going to deteriorate rapidly over the next year or so as assembly of products gets moved to China. These are recreational equipment products so no real harm to consumers but this might lend credence to the concerns over toxins found in Chinese made plastics and dog food.

I had another conversation with a client who is a facilities inspector for the USDA and is travelling to Thailand this year to inspect the processing of food imports into the U.S. We have to pay government officias to travel over seas because while we want cheap imports, we can't trust other govenments to make them safe.

How did we ever survive back before free trade when stuff was produced in the good ol' USA?

So one answer is to not allow importers to cheat on quality and safety standards. This would level the playing field for American manufacturers. Another would have been a "buy american" provision in the stimulus and bank bailouts. China required all of their large stimulus package to be spent with Chinese companies.

There are many other things that can be done, and I'm sure you will dismiss them as protectionist without explaining whether or not they will help our cause.

But forget that, go back and tell me how free trade has benefited our economy as a whole. I'm all ears.

Wow, goes to show you, you post long enough and eventually someone will come up with a post like this. Are you related to either Hawley or Smoot? I don't know how else to explain someone's backing of a similar economic notion.

For the record, I'm not pro free trade. If I had a time machine, I agree, going back to the era when the US could dictate terms on trade and benefit tremendously from that position would be great. However, I'm also a realist and it's clear that free trade is not going away. Planning an economy like you lay out where you pull the US from the free trade system and expect there to be no net impact on the US is just fantasy - the genie is out of the bottle, and you can't put it back in and pretend it's not there. Choosing to hide in a shell and to push businesses offshore does nothing for the US in the longterm. Again, there are examples galore over the past century of people doing exactly like you have proposed and every single one of them has failed. Why would it work now? Because we really, really want it to work? Propping up industries that can't compete globally just means you have industries that will fall harder and be more painful when eventually they fail. Erecting trade barriers (whether they be tarriffs or arbitrary quality standards) only invite the same to be done to our companies that make domestically and sell overseas. Seeing how we are import dependent now, that's only going to hurt in the shortterm as well - we're not in the best position for a trade war with the rest of the world. And longterm, companies will continue to keep investment off shore and eventually that will come to roost down the road as our facilities get older and more obsolete.

It's funny, you advocate this policy, but in another thread you bring up Germany as a model to follow. But Germany is fairly open to trade and decidedly on the free trade side of the equation. The reason is because you have to be - it's not a matter of want anymore. It's simply the reality of the world we live in. Germany succeeds in this enivornment not by hiding in a shell - they have a reasonable corporate tax rate (about 10% lower than the US), they deal with repatriation much less harshly than the US, and most importantly they focus on what's ahead and what can succeed in the long term in terms of businesses. Like I said in that thread, they make products that are hard to make elsewhere, they make things in markets where they tend to be the market leaders, and they compete globally on the strength of their product, not artificial, institutional gimmicks. So why do you like that model but then not want to repeat the same here?

In the end, it doesn't matter your idealogical persuasion - free trade, for all of its drawbacks (and to the US there are many) is the rule of th day. If we opt not to play the game, it doesn't mean the game stops - we walk away with our ball, then the rest of the world will just use a different ball and move on. Better to stay in the game, get better, and win.

What are you, the Neville Chamberlain of U.S. manufacturing?

1) We don't have free trade now.

2) The rest of the world still needs our markets which means we have some leverage

[GannonFan]

Wow, goes to show you, you post long enough and eventually someone will come up with a post like this. Are you related to either Hawley or Smoot? I don't know how else to explain someone's backing of a similar economic notion.

For the record, I'm not pro free trade. If I had a time machine, I agree, going back to the era when the US could dictate terms on trade and benefit tremendously from that position would be great. However, I'm also a realist and it's clear that free trade is not going away. Planning an economy like you lay out where you pull the US from the free trade system and expect there to be no net impact on the US is just fantasy - the genie is out of the bottle, and you can't put it back in and pretend it's not there. Choosing to hide in a shell and to push businesses offshore does nothing for the US in the longterm. Again, there are examples galore over the past century of people doing exactly like you have proposed and every single one of them has failed. Why would it work now? Because we really, really want it to work? Propping up industries that can't compete globally just means you have industries that will fall harder and be more painful when eventually they fail. Erecting trade barriers (whether they be tarriffs or arbitrary quality standards) only invite the same to be done to our companies that make domestically and sell overseas. Seeing how we are import dependent now, that's only going to hurt in the shortterm as well - we're not in the best position for a trade war with the rest of the world. And longterm, companies will continue to keep investment off shore and eventually that will come to roost down the road as our facilities get older and more obsolete.

It's funny, you advocate this policy, but in another thread you bring up Germany as a model to follow. But Germany is fairly open to trade and decidedly on the free trade side of the equation. The reason is because you have to be - it's not a matter of want anymore. It's simply the reality of the world we live in. Germany succeeds in this enivornment not by hiding in a shell - they have a reasonable corporate tax rate (about 10% lower than the US), they deal with repatriation much less harshly than the US, and most importantly they focus on what's ahead and what can succeed in the long term in terms of businesses. Like I said in that thread, they make products that are hard to make elsewhere, they make things in markets where they tend to be the market leaders, and they compete globally on the strength of their product, not artificial, institutional gimmicks. So why do you like that model but then not want to repeat the same here?

In the end, it doesn't matter your idealogical persuasion - free trade, for all of its drawbacks (and to the US there are many) is the rule of th day. If we opt not to play the game, it doesn't mean the game stops - we walk away with our ball, then the rest of the world will just use a different ball and move on. Better to stay in the game, get better, and win.

What are you, the Neville Chamberlain of U.S. manufacturing?

1) We don't have free trade now.

2) The rest of the world still needs our markets which means we have some leverage

Really, Neville? That's your analogy? Your view of American manufacturing capability is that dim? Heck, why even bother with tarriffs and trade restrictions, you might as well run the white flag up the pole right now and give up if you really believe that.

As for 1), we're much closer to free trade than you think. Of course it's never perfect, but it's far from the restricted trade you are suggesting. And as for 2), sure the world needs our markets - the problem is we need their products just as much if not more. Do you really think the populace today would rally around a trade war that would sink good portions of the economy, at least temporarily, and force people to do with less? You have seen the latest recession, correct? Certainly hasn't been rosy times.