The Axiom, "Free Trade Benefits All" does not hold up in today's world. It has to be "Fair Trade". The case for permanent Import Duties on China

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Lets see trumps taxes... there are reasons he hides that.

Same reason nobody sees mine.  Privacy.  Not the business of anyone else, especially the public. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Same reason nobody sees mine.  Privacy.  Not the business of anyone else, especially the public. 

Someone might look at them at the IRS or whatever your revenue agency is called.

Proper tax collection is absolutely the business of the "public" as a group.

I worked for the feds for years, your info would be classified at about the "Protected B" level. (little risk of significant financial harm, embarrassment, security risk, etc.) if accidentally leaked.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

10 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Someone might look at them at the IRS or whatever your revenue agency is called.

Proper tax collection is absolutely the business of the "public" as a group.

I worked for the feds for years, your info would be classified at about the "Protected B" level. (little risk of significant financial harm, embarrassment, security risk, etc.) if accidentally leaked.

I invite you to take a look as the way it is done in Switzerland.  There, tax collection is a civil-court matter.  If the govt does not like your Return, then they can take you to Court, same as in any other civil dispute.  Sounds about right to me. 

[Okie + 83]

Late breaking news is that Trump has labeled China a currency manipulator.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/business/china-currency-manipulator-donald-trump/index.html

Interestingly, my concentration in law school was international trade law.  However, I never got to practice it.  I find this debate fascinating, and I think both sides make good points.  One thing I learned in those classes was "there is more than one way to skin a cat."

The proponents of the TPP argued that the U.S. economy would gain around $30 billion, which is on the one hand a lot of money, but on the other hand is only a tiny fraction of the $20 trillion (about 0.15%) gross domestic product.

However, it is being widely reported that this is a big escalation of the trade war.  Buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Okie
Clarity.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

2 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Someone might look at them at the IRS or whatever your revenue agency is called.

Proper tax collection is absolutely the business of the "public" as a group.

I worked for the feds for years, your info would be classified at about the "Protected B" level. (little risk of significant financial harm, embarrassment, security risk, etc.) if accidentally leaked.

Canada, not the US 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 8/4/2019 at 10:14 AM, Danlxyz said:

My suggestion is to replace the income tax with a 20% gross receipts tax on all goods and services. It would be much simpler.

I really do not think this is such a good idea.  The European-style (and now also in Canada) VAT, which you are treating as a "gross receipts tax," tends to hurt sectors of society. 

First, think back to Mitt Romney and his private conversations in a hotel room in Massachusetts, recorded of course by the low-wage Puerto Rican hotel cleaning maids.  He made the statement that he did not care about the "bottom 47%" as they paid no income taxes anyway (and thus would not be supporters of him and his tax reduction ideas).  His statement, while made in a dismissive tone (which was recorded and then distributed by his political opponents in order to hurt him, which it did, similar to Clinton's comments about "the deplorables," another arrogant and insolent comment about poor people), was accurate enough.  the bottom half of the income brackets do not pay Federal taxes. Instead, some will receive income supplements via the "Federal Tax Credit" system, funds handed out to income earners, and called the "Earned Income Credit"  ["EIC"]. 

The driver of the EIC is the children.  EIC recipients who have a child or children can receive several thousands in income supplements via the tax credit. So that means that ALL the federal income taxes are being paid by the upper-income earners.  In effect, this is income shifting.  Incidentally I support this system, full disclosure so that my "politics" are faithfully released. Most businessmen do, as it takes the pressure off wage rates in the manufacturing plants, at least to some extent.  Nobody wants poor, struggling employees  (OK, so WalMart was good with it, but you won't find that attitude in manufacturing), because they tend to show up for work when sick and infectious and then have accidents. 

If you scrap the income tax then you also scrap the EIC.  There goes your income levelling system upon which many poorer working families depend.  And there is no obvious substitute. 

The other problem is that you will have an immediate drop in national tax revenues.  A 20% GRT  is not going to get you to where you now are in revenues with the FIT. So you have even more shortfall. 

If you go to a GRT, or VAT, then you are taxing the poorer people who take a big hit to their disposable income.  That makes them even poorer and also institutionalizes and perpetuates poverty.   And that is why you have these pockets of rural poverty in Europe, and entire countries are poor, such as Romania and Moldova.  They tax the poor.  It is a lousy system.  Cheers.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

7 hours ago, John Foote said:

IMHO, the basic way of doing taxes will have to change to some participation tax. You play in the USA, you pay in the USA.

Yet the big players in the oil import business do not pay anything.  Their oil and oil products are all brought in, in massive volumes, duty-free.  So, I ask you:  where is the logic in that? 

[Boat + 1,315]

The tax gap is what you google to learn about income distribution to the rich in the US. It runs around 400 billion a year. This is the money that ends up in those off shore accounts. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

12 hours ago, Okie said:

However, it is being widely reported that this is a big escalation of the trade war.  Buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

It probably won't  (be bumpy).  As the USA disengages from China and as the old tariffs of non-MFN levels come back  (which on some goods were as high as 45%), the clever bank of US entrepreneurs will be rushing in to provide new substitute manufacturing.  Let me give you an example.

In the 1930's the Chinese Armies were being beaten up by the Japanese, and China needed heavy rail motive power to move men and materiel around.  The USA, being sympathetic  (and not much liking Japanese imperial aggression)  sent over a fleet of steam locomotives, I think these were from the Baldwin Locomotive Works, built in their big plant in Eddystone, Pennsylvania, outside Philadelphia.  The engines had the wheel arrangement "2-8-2" also called the "Mikado," as the type was also built in Japan by the Japanese National RR.  The Mikados were well suited to movements in back China as they could pull large loads up hefty grades  (lots of weight over the driving wheels).  

The story goes that the Chinese proceeded to dismantle a US Mikado and copy the entire engine, exactly as built, bolt by bolt, right down to duplicating the US bolt threads instead of using metric.  So a finished Chinese-built Mick was exactly the same as a US one, and you could not tell the difference.  After the War, much later, the Chinese began to export those slavish duplicates back to the USA.  There are still three working Chinese-built clone duplicates of the Baldwin Locomotive Works originals in the USA; I don't think any of the original Baldwin units are still around.  So, in a sense, the Chinese duplicators are keeping US history alive!   (Ironically, one of them ran on a historical steam-train line in Connecticut, which the riders all assumed was a Baldwin machine, not realizing that it was actually built in China.)

Edited August 6, 2019 by Jan van Eck
typing error

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

10 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Lets see trumps taxes... there are reasons he hides that.

There is no legal requirement for Trump to release his tax returns.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

12 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Same reason nobody sees mine.  Privacy.  Not the business of anyone else, especially the public. 

I generally respect the rigth to privacy, but in Trumps case it is different. He puts himself on a piedestal. When you do that it is fair that you are asked to back it up. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Danlxyz + 62]

 

9 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

If you scrap the income tax then you also scrap the EIC.  There goes your income levelling system upon which many poorer working families depend.  And there is no obvious substitute. 

The other problem is that you will have an immediate drop in national tax revenues.  A 20% GRT  is not going to get you to where you now are in revenues with the FIT. So you have even more shortfall. 

As far as a shortfall, that is not true. See below:https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2018-trump-federal-budget-request-4158794

Revenue
Half of the FY 2018 revenue of $3.33 trillion comes from income taxes. They contribute $1.684 trillion. Payroll taxes are $1.171 trillion and include Social Security and Medicare taxes. Corporate taxes add $205 billion, contributing just 6%. Trump's tax plan cut the corporate contribution from 9% in FY 2017.

This comes out to 16.3% of GDP and would allow money for a separate Child Credit and Child Care Credit rebate.

 

I do agree that those 47% who pay no taxes now would have to pay taxes.

Some people may be tied to a place, but many others should move on if there is no work where they live. It happens a lot in the oil field. If a rig shuts down they move to Texas or Wyoming or wherever there is work.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

24 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I generally respect the rigth to privacy, but in Trumps case it is different. He puts himself on a piedestal. When you do that it is fair that you are asked to back it up. 

Rasmus, that is totally ridiculous.  First, in the US there is a construct known generally as the "joint tax return."  Husband and wife can (and usually do) file together, and in some circumstances that includes children as well.  What you are saying is that if someone runs for public service then their wives shall expose their personal and intimate lives and details to your scrutiny.  That is classically Calvinist of you, a form of old-line stentorian Protestantism of the 1600's.  Nobody has any right to invade the privacy of Melania, now do they?  And you don't know who else is in that tax return, I would assume Mr. Trump's young son also.  

Thus, I say:  everybody butt out.  None of anybody's business.  You don't like him being rich, so go vote for the poor boy, if that suits your effete taste levels, That is my view. Cheers.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

7 minutes ago, Danlxyz said:

This comes out to 16.3% of GDP and would allow money for a separate Child Credit and Child Care Credit rebate

If you scrap the personal income tax then the Earned Income Tax Credit, which you style as a Child tax rebate, also disappears, as the mechanism for calculating the EIC disappears.  Unless you propose to make a child rebate an Entitlement payment, which means that everyone gets it, including the upper earners for whom it has no real impact.  Remember that the EIC is designed to lift poorer people out of poverty.  It has done quite well in that task. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

11 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

First, in the US there is a construct known generally as the "joint tax return."  Husband and wife can (and usually do) file together, and in some circumstances that includes children as well.

I did not know this. 

11 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

hat you are saying is that if someone runs for public service then their wives shall expose their personal and intimate lives and details to your scrutiny.

No. that is not what I said. 

I said that Trump (either to get elected or because it is just who he is) has a rhetoric that implies doing the rigth thing for the US of A. I would assume that Trump walks his talk; that he is not as corrupt as other politician. He is after all elected to drain the swamp. 

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

13 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Thus, I say:  everybody butt out.  None of anybody's business.  You don't like him being rich, so go vote for the poor boy, if that suits your effete taste levels, That is my view. Cheers.

I can't vote in the US and really don't care who the US elects. I think in some ways that Trump will be good for some issues that I care about, but likely as a biproduct. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Danlxyz + 62]

4 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

If you scrap the personal income tax then the Earned Income Tax Credit, which you style as a Child tax rebate, also disappears, as the mechanism for calculating the EIC disappears.  Unless you propose to make a child rebate an Entitlement payment, which means that everyone gets it, including the upper earners for whom it has no real impact.  Remember that the EIC is designed to lift poorer people out of poverty.  It has done quite well in that task. 

You are forgetting the inventiveness of lawmakers. There is no reason the EITC rules (as well as the Child Tax Credit and Additional Child Tax Credit and Dependent Care Credit and probably others) cannot be implemented as a separate law. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

6 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I did not know this. 

No. that is not what I said. 

I said that Trump (either to get elected or because it is just who he is) has a rhetoric that implies doing the rigth thing for the US of A. I would assume that Trump walks his talk; that he is not as corrupt as other politician. He is after all elected to drain the swamp. 

 

So you would make a requirement that the President, and only the President, should submit his tax returns? Because you THINK that he may be corrupt?

By that reasoning EVERY elected official, state, federal and local, should be held to the same scrutiny because somebody, somewhere will believe them to be corrupt.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

13 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

So you would make a requirement that the President, and only the President, should submit his tax returns?

You have to draw the line somewhere, but not necessarily at the president (or any other head of government). Basically corruption is bad; I am not afraid to say that. 

14 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Because you THINK that he may be corrupt?

No. Because the platform he ran on requires him to walk the talk. 

------------------------------

I don't like Trumps style. Most here probably know this. That doesn't mean I think all he does is bad. But for sake of good order and clarity - I don't think all he does is good either. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

He likely could have performed better, and been able to deliver more on his campaign promises, if the House had decided to actually do some work this term instead of spending all of their time and energy simply obstructing Trump.

This does not mean agreeing with him, it means having meaningful debate and then passing legislation that addresses the issue.

Bitching and moaning about his tax return, calling for the Mueller investigation (and then investigating the investigator when the report didn't yield the desired result), etc...did nothing to address the standard of living of regular Americans, did nothing to resolve the immigration issue, did nothing to address foreign meddling in our elections, et cetera ad nauseam.

I could care less what political party they are on, but elected officials are elected to do their jobs and make decisions to better America.

 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

12 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

e likely could have performed better, and been able to deliver more on his campaign promises, if the House had decided to actually do some work this term instead of spending all of their time and energy simply obstructing Trump.

This does not mean agreeing with him, it means having meaningful debate and then passing legislation that addresses the issue.

Did Trump not have a republican majority in congress for his first 2 years? Who is responsible for not achieving much the first 2 years? Why do you frame it as Trump being obstructed rather than Trump not being able to "negotiate" better? 

Trump gets praise for being able to start a dialogue with NK. But he doesn't get shit for not being able to work with Congress??? 

12 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I could care less what political party they are on, but elected officials are elected to do their jobs and make decisions to better America.

who decides what betters America?

Edited August 6, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Did Trump not have a republican majority in congress for his first 2 years? Who is responsible for not achieving much the first 2 years? Why do you frame it as Trump being obstructed rather than Trump not being able to "negotiate" better? 

Trump gets praise for being able to start a dialogue with NK. But he doesn't get shit for not being able to work with Congress??? 

who decides what betters America?

There is NO QUESTION the Republican majority, (Especially the then speaker of the house Paul Ryan, who stabbed him in the back then took his Millions in bribes and disappeared) did no favors for Trump. EVERY professional politician hates Trump, regardless of their party. He represents their worst fear, a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" amateur with power who can't be bought. Those currently accusing Trump of emoluments abuses have laughably stupid arguments to back their thesis.

I personally know several billionaires. They simply live on a different planet. Once you have your private jets, your yachts, and your bloated bank accounts, your attitude changes. You truly think Trump can be bought because someone paid $500 a night to stay in his hotel? Last time I was in DC I stayed in a crap hotel. Guess how much THEY charged? $500 a night (the Omni). Fortune estimated Trump's net worth by assuming he was going to sell all his properties at fire sale prices immediately. He'd be a moron to do so, but those pushing for him to place all his assets in a bind trust were demanding Exactly that! 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 hours ago, Danlxyz said:

You are forgetting the inventiveness of lawmakers. There is no reason the EITC rules (as well as the Child Tax Credit and Additional Child Tax Credit and Dependent Care Credit and probably others) cannot be implemented as a separate law. 

Sure it could.  But, since those are predicated on the calculations of the 1040, how do you propose to calculate those line items if there is no 1040?  Or, does everyone who wants the credits have to file a 1040 anyway, even though the income tax is abolished, in which case you have this unequal burdens on the society?   You see the problems.  

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I can't vote in the US and really don't care who the US elects. I think in some ways that Trump will be good for some issues that I care about, but likely as a biproduct. 

Well guess what, I cannot vote in US Federal elections either, compliments of a meddling Congress that legislated away my vote.  I do care who the people of the USA do elect, both as Executive and as the Congress, because who and how determines the short-term future of everyone here  (and that includes me).  Right now, in a very narrow focus, the issue is:  does Mr. Trump do better, and is he the better person, than Mrs. Clinton?  And that is a mixed bag.  Mrs. Clinton would have run a better, more organized, much less chaotic, White House, but she would not have made bold moves, either on the World Stage or on domestic economic reconstruction.  She would never has imposed tariffs, for example.  She would never have gone to North Korea.  She would have refused to speak with Mr. Kim.  And US steel mills and aluminum foundries and casting plants and their thousands of workers would still be out of a job and dependent on opioids.  That is the reality. Mrs. Clinton is a bureaucrat, has a handle on bureaucratic protocol, and would have had to find a job for Mr. Clinton, who otherwise would be roaming the White House halls with nothing to do  (OK, the interns would still be there....).   Mr. Trump found a job for Jared Kushner  (big disaster) and for Son Trump  (Don Jr.)  (another big mistake) and even for daughter Ivanka (if I have the names right), all mistakes, but hey, it is what it is.  Who is doing the better job?  Well, we do not know, because for Mrs. C., it would be speculation.  She did not get elected by the electoral college, now did she?

[John Foote + 1,135]

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I could care less what political party they are on, but elected officials are elected to do their jobs and make decisions to better America.

In today's environment, a major component of getting elected is to obstruct. That is their job. And a nasty Chinese finger puzzle problem, the harder we fight, the less likely we win.

Ultimately it's because we the voters put these sorts in. We are getting behavior we vote for, and bitch about the by-products. Nothing new, but it's getting worse. Newt Gingrich was a legendary obstructionist at times. One reason so many judges haven confirmed under Trump was an unwillingness to allow confirmations in Obama's second term, a gamble that worked. But if you liked that, you can't whine it happens the other way. And to blame a Pelosi or Ryan is to miss the point. 

It is a damp swamp, but we have to quit electing obstructionists. And yet the systems endures it it's clumsy way.