[quote]Sloth wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
As for farming, we could do away with subsidies.
Or only subsidize small farms with niche markets. That’s the incentive idea.
Nah. Don’t subsidize any farms. That’s protectionist.[/quote]
Tariffs are by far more deleterious to the economy than subsidies.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Sloth,
Here’s the number one reason your idea won’t work. Other governments should NOT be allowed to manipulate out government’s income so directly.
By not selling us stuff? That’s a good way to manipulate their own income. To the floor.
Can’t risk it.[/quote]
So we drive the cost of manafacturing and business up here at home, drive jobs offshore, sell our debt to China and SA? I’m having a hard time grasping why we want to rely on a system of taxation that makes it so costly for domestic business to compete.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Sloth,
Here’s the number one reason your idea won’t work. Other governments should NOT be allowed to manipulate out government’s income so directly.
By not selling us stuff? That’s a good way to manipulate their own income. To the floor.
Can’t risk it.
So we drive the cost of manafacturing and business up here at home, drive jobs offshore, sell our debt to China and SA? I’m having a hard time grasping why we want to rely on a system of taxation that makes it so costly for domestic business to compete.[/quote]
That’s why I favor the consumption tax. You do have a point with congress possibly sneaking in a war-tax though.
I believe that Britain has successfully implemented a consumption tax.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Sloth,
Here’s the number one reason your idea won’t work. Other governments should NOT be allowed to manipulate out government’s income so directly.
By not selling us stuff? That’s a good way to manipulate their own income. To the floor.
Can’t risk it.
So we drive the cost of manafacturing and business up here at home, drive jobs offshore, sell our debt to China and SA? I’m having a hard time grasping why we want to rely on a system of taxation that makes it so costly for domestic business to compete.
That’s why I favor the consumption tax. You do have a point with congress possibly sneaking in a war-tax though.
I believe that Britain has successfully implemented a consumption tax.[/quote]
Another thing about the consumption tax. What’s with the monthyly rebates? Seems like a huge amount of administrative work to get those checks out every single month.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
…
Well, if they’re not lowering domestic taxes at the same time, they’re just shooting themselves in the foot. In any event, we wouldn’t raise tariffs again, in retaliation. And, remember, I’m calling for gutting federal spending, not simply slowing spending. I don’t think we’d need anything near the level of tariffs you may be thinking.[/quote]
Even moderate tariffs prompt retaliation from other nations.
Bottom line. It seems odd to me to be so concerned with paying a higher price (if maybe only marginally) on imported goods, yet, turn around and drive up the cost of domestic goods through our current system. Something doesn’t compute for me.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Another thing about the consumption tax. What’s with the monthyly rebates? Seems like a huge amount of administrative work to get those checks out every single month.[/quote]
Who knows… I’m not familiar with the rebates, but hey if it creates jobs then it sounds like a sneaky form of economic stimulus ala-Roosevelt.
I’ve heard it said that if we kept spending at the level it was 10 years ago, we could cover it without an income tax. Anyone able to falsify this?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Bottom line. It seems odd to me to be so concerned with paying a higher price (if maybe only marginally) on imported goods, yet, turn around and drive up the cost of domestic goods through our current system. Something doesn’t compute for me.[/quote]
But we don’t even make 3/4 of the shit we consume…
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Another thing about the consumption tax. What’s with the monthyly rebates? Seems like a huge amount of administrative work to get those checks out every single month.
Who knows… I’m not familiar with the rebates, but hey if it creates jobs then it sounds like a sneaky form of economic stimulus ala-Roosevelt.[/quote]
When we’ve come to the point where we’re looking towards the government sector as being the supplier of jobs, we’re in bad shape.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ve heard it said that if we kept spending at the level it was 10 years ago, we could cover it without an income tax. Anyone able to falsify this?[/quote]
Clarify this.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Bottom line. It seems odd to me to be so concerned with paying a higher price (if maybe only marginally) on imported goods, yet, turn around and drive up the cost of domestic goods through our current system. Something doesn’t compute for me.
But we don’t even make 3/4 of the shit we consume…[/quote]
Unfortunately we’ve made it pretty costly to do so.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Bottom line. It seems odd to me to be so concerned with paying a higher price (if maybe only marginally) on imported goods, yet, turn around and drive up the cost of domestic goods through our current system. Something doesn’t compute for me.[/quote]
You are totally missing it. You are driving up costs for the American consumer and you are making it harder for the American farmer, manufacturer or even film maker to export.
Free trade is a boon for all involved. Closed markets and protectionism are a disaster.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’ve heard it said that if we kept spending at the level it was 10 years ago, we could cover it without an income tax. Anyone able to falsify this?
Clarify this.[/quote]
Well, say we kept spending at the 1998 level. I’ve seen claims that we could today cover that spending without an income tax. I’ll be honest here, and admit that this is something R. Paul claims. However, Glenn Beck (yes, I listen occasionally), thinking Paul was full of it, took a look at the claim and came to the same conclusion. This is of course why I’ve said we’d need to gut spending. Gone with foreign defense of other nations, no more Dept. of Education, NEA, phasing out entitlment programs back to the private sector, etc.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Bottom line. It seems odd to me to be so concerned with paying a higher price (if maybe only marginally) on imported goods, yet, turn around and drive up the cost of domestic goods through our current system. Something doesn’t compute for me.
You are totally missing it. You are driving up costs for the American consumer and you are making it harder for the American farmer, manufacturer or even film maker to export.
Free trade is a boon for all involved. Closed markets and protectionism are a disaster.[/quote]
But, we drive up costs on the consumer through our present system, no? I would think domestic taxes become embedded into the price of domestic goods.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Bottom line. It seems odd to me to be so concerned with paying a higher price (if maybe only marginally) on imported goods, yet, turn around and drive up the cost of domestic goods through our current system. Something doesn’t compute for me.
You are totally missing it. You are driving up costs for the American consumer and you are making it harder for the American farmer, manufacturer or even film maker to export.
Free trade is a boon for all involved. Closed markets and protectionism are a disaster.[/quote]
Agreed 99% Subsidies aren’t always bad. They can help shift the economy in a favorable direction.
I’d also add that historically tariffs have been a HUGE failure. They played a very large part in the civil war and the great depression, to name a few failures.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
What is being a jerk about shining some comon sense, and some truth on your fanciful little fantasy?
No. You don’t know about farming. You own land, and rent it out to someone that knows about farming. Your ideas prove you know nothing about the science.
Ignore me all you want, but when you start insulting farmers and what they do - I will make a point of shining this same light on it.
Why are you ignoring me? Most people with such “innovative” ideas relish the opportunity to talk about it, and debate it. You, however, are cussing and pouting in the corner.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’ve heard it said that if we kept spending at the level it was 10 years ago, we could cover it without an income tax. Anyone able to falsify this?
Clarify this.
Well, say we kept spending at the 1998 level. I’ve seen claims that we could today cover that spending without an income tax. I’ll be honest here, and admit that this is something R. Paul claims. However, Glenn Beck (yes, I listen occasionally), thinking Paul was full of it, took a look at the claim and came to the same conclusion. This is of course why I’ve said we’d need to gut spending. Gone with foreign defense of other nations, no more Dept. of Education, NEA, phasing out entitlment programs back to the private sector, etc.[/quote]
Post some links, it sounds interesting but with inflation it doesn’t seem to make sense.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Bottom line. It seems odd to me to be so concerned with paying a higher price (if maybe only marginally) on imported goods, yet, turn around and drive up the cost of domestic goods through our current system. Something doesn’t compute for me.
But we don’t even make 3/4 of the shit we consume…[/quote]
Except for exotic items, 100% of our food is made here.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Bottom line. It seems odd to me to be so concerned with paying a higher price (if maybe only marginally) on imported goods, yet, turn around and drive up the cost of domestic goods through our current system. Something doesn’t compute for me.
You are totally missing it. You are driving up costs for the American consumer and you are making it harder for the American farmer, manufacturer or even film maker to export.
Free trade is a boon for all involved. Closed markets and protectionism are a disaster.
Agreed 99% Subsidies aren’t always bad. They can help shift the economy in a favorable direction.
I’d also add that historically tariffs have been a HUGE failure. They played a very large part in the civil war and the great depression, to name a few failures.[/quote]
I become suspicious when people talk about free trade, free markets, but then turn around and favor tax payer funded subsidies so a central authority may “shift the economy in a favorable direction.”