|
Post by supposn1 on Jun 23, 2023 14:22:54 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, excerpted from the 1st post of this thread', “Expatriating of USA corporations”, (posted Sep 16, 2014 at 1:35 PM):
. I’m among the proponents of a unilateral transferable Import Certificate trade policy. Enacting such a policy would be of advantage to any nation suffering chronic annual trade deficits of goods. …
… The policy does not favor or disfavor any particular foreign nations. If you consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, the policy does not favor or disfavor any particular industry.
Its enactment into federal law would be of advantage to any USA enterprise that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods within or beyond USA’s borders.
For reference google Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”.
Competing participation ALL products, (including imported products), within our nation's domestic markets are beneficial to our economy; but unless a nation's labor markets are effectively experiencing full employment, Annual trade deficits are economically net detrimental to their nations. They are financially net detrimental to family's dependent upon wage incomes, and consequentially net detrimental to enterprises more sensitive the financial conditions of that great major majority segment of USA's population.
If the USA adopted an “Import Certificate' trade policy, I don't know and do not speculate if an act such as Sander Levin's 2014 proposed “Stop Corporate Inversions Act”; but for many products, there'd be no advantage, and likely disadvantages for transferring production beyond USA's borders. Import Certificate policies are greatly less intolerant of their nation's experiencing annual trade deficits of goods.
Respectively, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on May 26, 2019 9:38:30 GMT -6
Democrat's "do nothing” house.
Will the Democrats fail to regain the White House, due to the “do nothing House of Representatives”?
Madam Speaker, Congresswoman Pelosi, the task of managing the less manageable is a difficult challenge. Half of the 2019 session has passed and the Democratic House has not passed any meaningful populist legislation that discomforts U.S. Senate Republicans.
The Democratic Party will run a negative campaign while failing to pass a minimum wage rate gradually increased to achieve 125% of its February-1968 Consumer Price Index and thereafter retaining that CPI? The Democratic majority will also have failed to pass a meaningful infrastructure bill?
When the Democratic Party enters the 2020 elections lacking a proud recent record, President Trump and his party may well prevail against the “do nothing Democratic House of Representatives". President Truman successfully ran a similar campaign against a "do nothing Republican Congress".
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on May 26, 2018 21:01:40 GMT -6
President Trump's Tariffs:
I did not vote for a Democrat or a Republican 2017 presidential candidate or for their electoral college supporters. I indicated my rejection by voting for less than electable 3d party candidate, to demonstrate my opposition to the declared policies of both major parties and their candidates.
I am not among those that squandered their votes in favor of candidates for which they had no confidence. I was particularly opposed to Donald Trump. Although I certainly wish our president well, President Trump's administration has not earned my confidence.
I'm among the proponent of the improved policy described by Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article. It is superior to free trade or tariff policy. It would very significantly reduce, if not entirely eliminate USA's chronic annual trade deficits in a manner that would increase USA's domestic production and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.
We suppose Trump's tariffs on aluminum and steel will not do so, but the tariffs limitations would rather reduce our net production and numbers of jobs more than otherwise. If USA taxes imported aluminum and steel, it's preferable that we tax all USA imports, from all nations to the extents their shipments to us contain aluminum or steel.
It's not logical to “protect” USA steel mills but leave their USA customers at disadvantage to imports using cheaper foreign steel, and USA's trade laws should not be judging other nation's wage scales.
When USA customers for USA steel are crowded out of the markets, where's the market for USA steel produced by higher earning USA labor? Additionally, because tariffs, unlike Import Certificates would only be applicable to steel and aluminum, those USA products will continue to be crowded out by any goods or service products that could serve as an alternative to products made with steel or aluminum.
But if the Trump administration can succeed to reduce USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods, and increase our domestic production and numbers of jobs more than otherwise, regardless of all my other objections to the Trump administration, It's highly likely that I'd vote in favor of re-electing president Donald Trump.
Refer to Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on May 26, 2018 20:39:27 GMT -6
Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP and drag upon their numbers of jobs:
Annual trade deficits indicate their nation used and or consumed more products than they produced.
Similarly, a nation's annual positive balance of trade, (i.e. a trade surplus) indicates the nation produced more products then it used and or consumed. Domestic employment, (i.e. numbers of jobs) are dependent upon domestic production.
There are enterprises in industries that we would suppose our unrelated, but they generate commercial activity between them. (e.g. a coffee shop or a pizza parlor near a producer of goods, or a cartoonist that that provides content for that producer's in-house posters or company bulletins are two of many examples.
If due to production for export, more people in the nation are working more hours, and/or otherwise producing more, at more production sites, using more components and supplies, more commercial activity is being generated. (We all do better when we all do better).
Additional production for export generates additional commercial activity. To the extent that a nation fails to continue increasing, or reduces their production for export, they've reduced whatever commercial activity they previously enjoyed due to their foreign trade.
The actual costs of a nation's productions include all of the nation's production supporting goods and service products, and they all fully contribute to their nation's domestic production.; But to the extent that any of those supporting products were not fully reflected within export prices, those prices understate the actual cost of exported goods and services.
Thus, nations net balances of trade actually understate the extents of their international trade's effects upon their nation's domestic production; (i.e. net international trade's contributions to surplus nations and detriments to deficit nations' domestic productions are both understated).
Governments often locate or modify or build public infrastructures more favorable to their jurisdictions' larger producers. Similarly. professional well-qualified advice, opinions, research, and development studies are some examples of production supporting goods and services that may be provided by governments, universities, and other organizations on much lesser than market or at no cost. They mutually benefit from promoting their national or local economies.
These are costs that contribute to their nations' domestic production, but are not fully paid for by the favored producers, and are not reflected in those producers' prices. To the extent that prices of globally traded goods are understated, they understate international trades' effects upon their nation's net domestic product.
Economies of scale are more conspicuous in manufacturing, but they occur to some extent in almost all industries.
The lesser cost per unit of production is less available to U.S. Steel producers because they have a smaller potential home market of USA enterprises purchasing steel. USA has lesser steel purchasers due to lower-priced imports made with steel.
Foreign low-wage producers of cheaper steel sell to customers both within and beyond their nation's borders. Thus, due to economies of scale, they further reduce the per unit costs of their cheaper priced steel.
Economies of scale indirectly contribute to the producing nations GDP by enabling them to increase their production and/or the quality of their production at lesser cost.
The portions of domestic production not fully reflected within the prices of globally traded products, and thus not attributed to their nation's international trade statistics are not estimated or accounted for, but they exist within almost all, if not all nations' economies. To the extent of such trade balances understatements, those nations' trade balances effects upon their domestic production and their numbers of jobs exceed the amounts of their nations' annual net balances of trade.
We know that an enterprise's additional commercial activity can “resonate” with other seemingly less related enterprises and consequentially increase their nation's domestic production. An enterprise's production for export can, and often is such an additional commercial activity; we know international trade balances usually understate their nations net balances effects upon their nation's annual domestic production; We know that trade surplus nations' domestic productions are increased, and trade deficit nations' productions are reduced due to their annual net balances of trade; We know domestic production supports domestic employment.
Beyond the economic benefits of increasing their nations commercial activity and numbers of jobs, increasing domestic production often provides social, technical, and military benefits to their nation.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Mar 28, 2015 16:55:13 GMT -6
Sales taxes are less regressive than a flat rated income tax.
This thread is a response to those advocating transformation of our income taxes from progressive rates to a uniform flat rate.
Due to political and accounting difficulties, methods of calculating net incomes that has or may likely to be enacted into federal tax regulations understate net incomes. The amount of understatements and the understatements proportions to taxpayers’ actual net incomes are greater for wealthier taxpayers and less for taxpayers primarily dependent upon their wages and salaries,
General sales taxes are usually simpler than income taxes and they’re flat rated. Taxpayers’ purchases’ (rather than any algorithm) more accurately reflect taxpayers’ actual net incomes in proportion to each other. Thus general sales taxes are more accurate and less regressive than taxes upon net incomes.
Transforming a progressively rated to a flat rated tax upon net incomes would increase the taxes regression. A general sales tax would be less regressive than a flat rated tax upon net incomes.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Oct 5, 2014 18:51:15 GMT -6
I’m opposed to eliminating corporate taxes because it would encourage the return of the expense account society of World War Two. If personal net incomes are taxed at a greater than corporate’ rates, we will re-experience the prevalent tax evasion practiced by our expense account society during of World War Two. To the extent that we retain the taxing of net incomes, both individual and corporate incomes should be taxed at rates that are reasonably equitable to each other. I’m advocate of expanding the Earned Income credit provisions of IRS income tax regulations and (to the greatest extent feasible) replacing the taxes upon the lowest earning individuals with a federal sales tax. Sales taxes can be (to a very limited extent) be drafted to be effectively somewhat more progressive than a purely flat tax rate). There’s no such thing as a “fair” tax but this transfer of tax revenue sources would effective, equitably and simply tax continue taxing individuals’ and corporations’ net incomes while reducing their income tax rates. I’m an advocate of replacing the individuals’ $3900 per capita reduction of taxable incomes to be replaced with a revenue neutral tax credit amount that’s annually updated to stay abreast with the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power. The federal government should not be granting more per capita amounts of tax considerations to wealthier earning taxpayers and their dependents. Refer to unlawflcombatnt.proboards.com/thread/13804/sales-taxes I’m opposed to “special strokes for special folks”; the differentiating between sources of incomes or the manner the incomes were acquired. Corporations' dispersements of dividends should reduce their taxable incomes and 25% of earners’ dividends should be taxes withheld; In the cases where the individual or corporate taxpayers receive their dividends just prior to the end of fiscal quarters, the taxpayers could almost immediately file to reclaim refunds for their excess income taxes paid. I’m opposed to the unjustified tax reduction granted to long term capital gains incomes. Refer to the thread Capital gains tax and tax averaging methods for reducing taxable incomes. I’m proponent for entirely eliminating the FICA payroll taxes funding of Medicare, and half of Social Securities’ long term disabilities and retirement programs. FICA is the most regressive tax that of extremely greater burden to lesser earning employees. These are among the measures that could reduce both individuals’ and corporate income tax rates and equitably, retain federal tax revenues and be of lesser net burden to the working poor. To the extent that taxes upon the net incomes of enterprises are reduced, we would be reducing incentives for USA enterprises to be expatriated. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Oct 5, 2014 17:58:57 GMT -6
I’m opposed to eliminating corporate taxes because it would encourage the return of the expense account society of World War Two. If personal net incomes are taxed at a greater than corporates’ rates, we will re-experience the prevalent tax evasion practiced by our expense account society during of World War Two. To the extent that we retain the taxing of net incomes, both individual and corporate incomes should be taxed at rates that are reasonably equitable to each other. I’m advocate of expanding the Earned Income credit provisions of IRS income tax regulations and (to the greatest extent feasible) replacing the taxes upon the lowest earning individuals with a federal sales. Sales taxes can be (to a very limited extent) be drafted to be effectively somewhat more progressive than a purely flat tax rate). There’s no such thing as a “fair” tax but this transfer of tax revenue sources would effective, equitably and simply tax continue taxing individuals’ and corporations’ net incomes while reducing their income tax rates. I’m an advocate of replacing the individuals’ $3900 per capita reduction of taxable incomes to be replaced with a revenue neutural tax credit amount that’s anually udated to stay abreast with the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power. The federal government should not be granting more per capita amounts of tax considerations to wealthier earning taxpayers and their dependents. Refer to unlawflcombatnt.proboards.com/thread/13804/sales-taxes I’m opposed to “special strokes for special folks”; the differentiating between sources of incomes or the manner the incomes were accquired. Corporations dispersements of dividends should reduce their taxable incomes and 25% of earners’ dividends should be taxes withheld; In the cases where the individual or corporate taxpayers receive their dividends just prior to the end of fiscal quarters, the taxpayers could almost immediately file to reclaim refunds for their excess income taxes paid. I’m opposed to the unjustified tax reduction granted to long term capital gains incomes. Refer to the thread Capital gains tax and tax averaging methods for reducing taxable incomes. I’m proponent for entirely eliminating the FICA payroll taxes funding of Medicare, and half of Social Securities’ long term disabilities and retirement programs. FICA is the most regressive tax that of extremely greater burden to lesser earning employees. Refer to unlawflcombatnt.proboards.com/thread/13650/fica-payroll-tax-most-regressive These are among the measures that could reduce both individuals’ and corporate tax rates, equitably retain federal tax revenues and be of lesser net burden to the working poor and social security retirees. To the extent that enterprise’s taxes upon net incomes are reduced, we would be reducing incentives for USA enterprises to be expatriated. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Oct 5, 2014 17:37:48 GMT -6
Capital gains tax and tax averaging methods for reducing taxable incomes.
Profits due to the sale of anything owned by the seller for at least the full year prior to the sales transaction are granted Capital gains tax and tax averaging methods for reducing taxable incomes. extraordinary and unjustified tax reductions for their long term capital gain incomes.
I do not argue that incomes of those who continuously reinvest into and strive to nurture their enterprises are MORE worthy but they are CERTAINLY NOT LESS economically worthy than those who choose to “take the money and run”.
The lesser tax rates granted to commercial capital gains reduce federal revenues and increases our budget’s deficits.
(It's politically unfeasible to eliminate this consideration for taxpayers' selling their primary residence).
The IRS tax option of income averaging was once available to all taxpayers that experienced ANY financial boon.
Income averaging enabled a taxpayer to divide their taxable income over three year duration and pay taxes based upon those updated annual taxable incomes. Income averaging mitigated the higher tax due to progressive income tax rates. I believe it’s still an option available only to agriculture, ranching or fishing enterprises. It’s an advantage to those with erratic annual taxable incomes.
I think it then required the taxpayer’s net income for the last tax year be 20% greater than that of the previous tax year and some specific foreign incomes were not averaged out.
Except for those exclusions, the government made no other determination as to what source of income should be favored. The income averaging form did fully consider regulations or tax rate differences that may have changed during the years of incomes being averaged.
Unlike the tax reduction for long term capital gains, income averaging equally treated lottery winners, speculators, investors and home sellers. Government did not determine winners and losers.
I advocate that income averaging should be fully reinstated and replace the favorable treatment of long term capital gains. I would not be adverse to it being extended to average out 5 rather than the 3 years.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Oct 5, 2014 12:16:24 GMT -6
What if we denied foreign corporations of all rights and privileges that are exclusive e to corporations? In order to avail themselves of such corporate advantages they would have to operate through USA subsidiary corporations fully subject to federal and state laws? Respectfully, Supposn I certainly agree with doing this, though I'm not sure how legislation could be written to do this. ... Unlawflcombatnt, this is not precisely what I proposed but I in favor of eliminating foreign enterprises’ advantages over U.S. enterprises conducting business transactions within the United States. Respectfully, Supposn //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Refer to www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Notice-2014-52-Rules-Regarding-Inversions-and-Related-Transactions. WASHINGTON – Rep. Sandy Levin and Sen. Carl Levin, both D-Mich., authors of legislation to close the corporate inversion tax loophole, today welcomed the Treasury Department’s announcement of rules changes to address inversions. H.R. 4679: Stop Corporate Inversions Act of 2014: On May 20, a group of nearly a dozen House Democrats today introduced legislation to tighten restrictions on corporate tax inversions, limiting the ability of American companies to avoid U.S. taxation by combining with a smaller foreign business and moving their tax domicile overseas. The House legislation – the “Stop Corporate Inversions Act of 2014” (H.R. 4679) – and companion Senate legislation introduced by U.S. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) largely mirror the inversion proposal included in the President’s FY 2015 budget. Co-sponsors of the legislation include Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Sander Levin (D-MI), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-MA), Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Rep. John Larson (D-CT), Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-IL), Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// • On May 20, Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Sander Levin introduced the Stop Corporate Inversions Act of 2014, which broadly follows the proposal laid out by the President in his FY2015 budget. Sen. Carl Levin introduced similar legislation in the Senate • Currently, Section 7874 of the tax code prohibits U.S. companies from reincorporating overseas through an inversion unless stakeholders of the foreign company maintain more than 20% of the combined foreign corporation. The Stop Corporate Inversions Act would change the threshold so that the stakeholders of the foreign company must maintain at least 50% of the combined foreign corporation. • The bill would also prohibit U.S. companies from reincorporating overseas through an inversion if the affiliated group that includes the combined foreign entity is managed and controlled in the U.S. and conducts significant domestic business activities in the U.S. • As under current law, the bill would continue to provide a broad exception from Section 7874 rules if the affiliated group has substantial business activities (25% of employees by number, employees by compensation, assets, and income) in the foreign country where the combined entity is domiciled. The bill would be permanent and apply to inversions completed after May 8, 2014
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Oct 3, 2014 20:03:47 GMT -6
Excerpted from Unlawflcombatnt’s post of 3Oct 2014:
But I still maintain that import Tariffs are better than import certificates, because they don't increase the cost (and likely the consumer price) of goods produced in the US for US consumers.
Again, the US consumer market is 20% of Global GDP.
80-90% of US-produced goods are sold to American consumers.
Anything that impedes the sale of that 80-90% portion, in order to increase the 10-20% portion that goes towards exports, is not a good idea.
Tariffs raise the price of imports and reduce their ability to substitute for purchase of American-made goods by Americans.
But Tariffs do not raise price of American goods purchased by Americans, nor do they raise the price of American-made exports sold to foreign countries.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Unlawflcombatnt, if both tariffs and Import certificates are applicable to ALL goods imported into the USA, then both entirely increase the imported portions of imported goods and do not increase the proportions of any portion of goods not imported into the USA.
Tariffs and Import Certificates differ due to:
(1) tariffs double the additional price increases to USA purchasers of imported goods due to requiring assessing BOTH all USA’s import shipments, and for shipments for which the USA exporters' agreed to pay the federal fees. [Those fees defray the entire direct federal expenditures due to the Import Certificate trade policy].
(2) Within an Import Certificate policy, the net increases to USA purchasers of imported goods are market rather than government determined.
(3) Unlike tariffs, Import Certificates are an indirect but effective subsidy of USA’s exports.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Sept 16, 2014 11:35:06 GMT -6
I’m among the proponents of a unilateral transferable Import Certificate trade policy. Enacting such a policy would be of advantage to any nation suffering chronic annual trade deficits of goods.
The policy’s an indirect but effective subsidy of USA’s exported goods. The policy’s variable effects upon prices of USA gods to foreign purchasers and foreign goods prices to USA purchasers behave inversely to each other; [i.e. the policy’s market rather than government driven]. It’s not pure free global trade but it is pure competitive enterprise.
The policy does not favor or disfavor any particular foreign nations. If you consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, the policy does not favor or disfavor any particular industry.
Its enactment into federal law would be of advantage to any USA enterprise that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods within or beyond USA’s borders.
For reference google Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Expatriating of USA corporations:
Additionally the expatriation of USA corporations for their immediate tax benefits trouble me. Can legislation that would be of net economic benefit and not reduce USA’s corporate tax rates be drafted?
What if we denied foreign corporations of all rights and privileges that are exclusive e to corporations? In order to avail themselves of such corporate advantages they would have to operate through USA subsidiary corporations fully subject to federal and state laws?
Would that significantly mitigate the advantages that now motivate corporations to expatriate? Are there any similar laws now in force within the USA?
Do I encounter so many existing USA and North American subsidiaries corporations of foreign nations' enterprises because a North American subsidiary is entitled to all the participation benefits to the NAFTA agreements?
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Jul 29, 2014 3:17:11 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, liberals’ contend Medicare, Social Security retirement and disability, (i.e. social welfare) programs are economic net benefits to our entire nation,
Conservatives believe that it’s a drain upon our economy to benefit those that “do not fully contribute to our nation’s tax revenues and are net economic detriments to our nation. Tea Party partisans may very well succeed to reduce social programs’ benefits as the price they’ll extort for patching, (but not resolving) FICA’s eminent financial short fall, Conservative long term strategy is the elimination of those social welfare programs.
It would be more feasible to achieve sufficient funding for those particular social programs by enacting a federal sales tax rather than by funding those entitlements through our general federal budget. It is not your preference but I suppose you’d rather transform some of FICA’s tax revenues from a payroll tax to a sales tax rather than accept the reduction and the possible elimination of the programs that are currently dependent upon FICA payroll tax revenue funding.
Would you and others of opinions similar to yours be extremely uncomfortable to refrain from overt objecting to transforming some of the FICA payroll tax to be replaced by a general sales tax?
I would hope that if that transformation were enacted, we all could experience and appreciate the’ benefits of a federal sales tax or fully recognize its inferior characteristics.
Let’s take proposed transformation from income taxes to sales taxes off of the table until a federal sales tax has been enacted and we’ve had sufficient time to experience its economic affects upon our nation.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Jul 29, 2014 3:16:35 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, liberals’ contend Medicare, Social Security retirement and disability, (i.e. social welfare) programs are economic net benefits to our entire nation,
Conservatives believe that it’s a drain upon our economy to benefit those that “do not fully contribute to our nation’s tax revenues and are net economic detriments to our nation. Tea Party partisans may very well succeed to reduce social programs’ benefits as the price they’ll extort for patching, (but not resolving) FICA’s eminent financial short fall, Conservative long term strategy is the elimination of those social welfare programs.
It would be more feasible to achieve sufficient funding for those particular social programs by enacting a federal sales tax rather than by funding those entitlements through our general federal budget. It is not your preference but I suppose you’d rather transform some of FICA’s tax revenues from a payroll tax to a sales tax rather than accept the reduction and the possible elimination of the programs that are currently dependent upon FICA payroll tax revenue funding.
Would you and others of opinions similar to yours be extremely uncomfortable to refrain from overt objecting to transforming some of the FICA payroll tax to be replaced by a general sales tax?
I would hope that if that transformation were enacted, we all could experience and appreciate the’ benefits of a federal sales tax or fully recognize its inferior characteristics.
Let’s take proposed transformation from income taxes to sales taxes off of the table until a federal sales tax has been enacted and we’ve had sufficient time to experience its economic affects upon our nation.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Jul 26, 2014 18:17:38 GMT -6
Supposin, I completely disagree with your advocacy of VATs-- the reasons for which I've explained previously. ... In contrast, there are NO export markets for the US that compare with its own consumer market. VAT's raise the end-consumer price on the US's largest consumer market, thus reducing demand. Though VATs ultimately reduce the price of US goods in export markets, the aggregate size of those markets available to American exports pales in comparison to the US consumer market. As such, VATs will hurt American producers. VATs will reduce domestic demand far more than they'll increase export demand. VATs are a very bad idea for the US. Unlawflcombatnt, VATs are a superior method of sales tax administration. I suppose it’s not specifically VAT but rather a federal sales tax that you’re opposed to. Comparative to taxes levied upon other bases, the consequences of general sales taxes are proportionally of much lesser reduction of the tax’s base. To the extent that it’s feasible to shift portions of our revenues from taxing net incomes and gross payrolls gross general sales tax basis, I contend that such transfers would be very net beneficial to both our nation’s social and economic best interests. For further discussion of sales taxes refer to: unlawflcombatnt.proboards.com/thread/13804/sales-taxesRespectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Jul 26, 2014 18:01:13 GMT -6
Within another thread, Unlawflcombatnt wrote”:
”VATs”, (i.e. a sales tax method that most economists believe to be a superior administering method has not been enacted anywhere within the USA), will “ … ultimately reduce the price of US goods in export markets, the aggregate size of those markets available to American exports pales in comparison to the US consumer market. As such, VATs will hurt American producers. VATs will reduce domestic demand far more than they'll increase export demand. VATs are a very bad idea for the U.S.”.
///////////////////
Comparative to taxes levied upon other bases, the consequences of general sales taxes are of much lesser reduction of the tax’s base.
For example we do not doubt during World War Two the consequences of confiscational income tax rates severely reduced reported personal income, entrepreneurs and corporate executives were enjoying the luxury of support for their expense account existence. There are innumerable methods to understate net enterprises’ or individuals’ incomes.
Sales taxes are based upon gross rather than net sales revenues. To the extent that a general sales tax is applicable to most goods and services, and to the extent that tax is enforced, there’s less opportunity to evade a general sales tax.
Although it’s conceivable that USA could replace all income taxes with a federal sales tax, I do not believe it’s feasible. I do not believe that the U.S. Congress would be so imprudent as to attempt transferring our major revenue source from taxes upon net incomes to a tax upon general gross sales in a single huge step. If such transformation is ever attempted, I believe it would as it should be done incrementally. Additionally I believe that after one of the incremental steps the sales tax would approach an unacceptable rate which will interrupt further transforming steps.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Jul 26, 2014 15:36:56 GMT -6
Sales taxes are generally drafted as flat rated taxes. They are not integrally regressive but are COMPARATIVELY more regressive than progressive income taxes whose rates are incrementally increased in step with taxpayers’ taxable incomes.
USA’s income taxes are not nearly as progressive as conservatives would have us believe. The many loop holes and exceptions within USA’s IRS regulations, (i.e. special strokes for special folks) greatly reduce our income taxes’ progressive character. USA’s income taxes are not as progressive as conservative factions would wish us to believe; reducing federal income taxes by a uniform rate of taxable incomes and revenue neutrally replacing lost revenues with a general sales tax would not in aggregate be as regressive as we are being led to believe.
I particular advocate replacing half of FICA’s social security retirement and disability funding, and FICA’s entire Medicare funding with a tax based upon general sales transactions.
If both employees and employers FICA taxes were each reduced by 5% of payroll and replaced with a tax of 5% upon general sales transactions, net tax revenue would not be reduced and possibly be increased to cover the soon to be expected social security retirement and disability’s short fall. Due to the reduction of FICA taxes imbeded within the prices of all goods and services, (including government fees and services which are not generally subject to any sales taxes), USA’s working poor may experience a decrease and certainly not an increase of their incomes’ proportion they directly and indirectly pay for FICA.
FICA is the most regressive of federal taxes.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Jul 25, 2014 9:59:19 GMT -6
Noel Chan & Unlawflcombatnt, I agree with the Brooking institute’s evaluation that VAT’s a superior sales tax administrating method. Does China’s VAT significantly differ from the VAT employed by the European Union and many other nations? [I do not believe it’s feasible to replace USA’s entire federal income taxes with VAT but I’m an advocate of such replacement to whatever extent feasible. Unlawflcombatnt, most if not all nations logically rebate their own identified taxes upon their exported goods. Income taxes cannot be identified and quantified as taxes upon goods. Conventional sales taxes cannot identify all intermediate sales taxes collected throughout the entire chains of transactions and processing steps those goods have passed through. The Value Added Taxes enables the European Common market to function. USA should enact a federal VAT. I’m a proponent of replacing federal income taxes with a VAT to whatever extent feasible. I believe after one of the incremental transformation steps, the VAT will approach an unacceptable rate and further transformations will have to be interrupted. .
Respectfully, Supposn
[Excerpted from “ www.brookings.edu/papers/2010/0722_vat_gale.aspx “.
The key distinction is that VATs are collected at each stage of production, whereas retail sales taxes are collected only at point of final sale. As a result, the VAT is easier to enforce and is widely regarded as having a superior administrative structure to a retail sales tax”.
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Jul 25, 2014 4:24:55 GMT -6
... "Federal agencies grouped under the bland-sounding Economic Classification Policy Committee (ECPC) are proposing to radically redefine U.S. manufacturing and trade statistics. Under the proposal, U.S. firms that have offshored their production abroad – like Apple – would become “factoryless goods” manufacturers. The foreign factories that actually manufacture the goods – like the notorious iPhone-producing Foxconn factories in China – would no longer be manufacturers, but “service” providers for the rebranded “manufacturing” firms like Apple. It appears the administration has been reading Orwell. ...". Unlawflcombatnt, I agree that enabling a tangible product (as opposed to intellectual property or a legal “right”), to be considered as a service rather than as goods would be a grievous falsehood within our foreign trade statistics. U.S. Customs and our global trade statistics should consider products imported into the USA by contractors ordering production to their exact specifications are treated no differently than all other products imported into the USA. I’m a proponent of Import certificates as described in the Wikipedia article entitled “Import Certificates”. Under an IC trade policy, products are considered as imported if they entered the USA through our national borders. Materials and components departing the USA are considered as exports even if they are expected to return into the USA or in whatever is their expected form or condition when they re-enter the USA. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Jul 25, 2014 4:23:42 GMT -6
... "Federal agencies grouped under the bland-sounding Economic Classification Policy Committee (ECPC) are proposing to radically redefine U.S. manufacturing and trade statistics. Under the proposal, U.S. firms that have offshored their production abroad – like Apple – would become “factoryless goods” manufacturers. The foreign factories that actually manufacture the goods – like the notorious iPhone-producing Foxconn factories in China – would no longer be manufacturers, but “service” providers for the rebranded “manufacturing” firms like Apple. It appears the administration has been reading Orwell. ...". Unlawflcombatnt, I agree that enabling a tangible product (as opposed to intellectual property or a legal “right”), to be considered as a service rather than as goods would be a grievous falsehood within our foreign trade statistics. U.S. Customs and our global trade statistics should consider products imported into the USA by contractors ordering production to their exact specifications are treated no differently than all other products imported into the USA. I’m a proponent of Import certificates as described in the Wikipedia article entitled “Import Certificates”. Under an IC trade policy, products are considered as imported if they entered the USA through our national borders. Materials and components departing the USA are considered as exports even if they are expected to return into the USA or in whatever is their expected form or condition when they re-enter the USA. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Apr 29, 2014 9:31:43 GMT -6
You're right. I got turned around on what I was saying. FICA taxes ARE more regressive than sales taxes. But both are very regressive, compared to income taxes. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Unlawflcombatnt, excerpted from my post of Apr 21, 2014 at 10:46AM. A flat sales tax is comparatively more regressive than progressive income taxes but due to exceptions and exclusions, (i.e. special strokes for special folks), our “progressive income taxes ain’t that progressive. Although populists such as I would prefer that funds be created by more progressive income taxes, that, [to replace the reduced revenue due to reduction of FICA’s payroll tax rate] is politically less achievable and if achieved, is particularly vulnerable to repeal or reduction. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Apr 22, 2014 10:57:45 GMT -6
Supposin, I don't see how you're arriving at the conclusion that FICA taxes are more "regressive" than sales taxes. FICA taxes are only on the first $100-105K of income (I don't know what the current cap is at present). There's no FICA on income over that amount. That means the more that an individual makes over the $100-105K cap, the lower their FICA tax % as a portion of their total income. A person making $1 million/year is not paying any more FICA than someone making $110K/year. That makes the FICA part of taxes about as regressive as you can get. /////////////////////////////////// UnlawflCombatnt, we do not agree upon the definitions of “progressive” or “regressive” taxes? USA’s income taxes are described as progressive because (in theory) the tax rate increases as the incomes increase; (i.e. individuals’ taxes proportion’s of taxes relative to their incomes increase if their income amounts increase. FICA taxes are described as regressive because individuals FICA taxes are reduced from 7.65% to 1.45% after the annual incomes reach the capped amount. Thus beyond employee’s annual earning's capped amounts, employees proportions of FICA taxes relative to their total incomes decrease. Furthermore only incomes itemized upon payrolls are subject to any FICA taxes. The working poors’ incomes are almost entirely due to incomes itemized upon payrolls. Wealthier individual deriving incomes from other than employment are not subject to any FICA taxes. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Apr 21, 2014 8:46:43 GMT -6
Feb 24, 2014 at 2:15pm unlawflcombatnt said: I see your point on FICA & sales taxes.
But the lesser of 2 evils is still evil.
Removing the cap on FICA contributions should be no-brainer for a Populist, Progressive, or any politician with a sense of basic fairness. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
UnlawflCombatnt, removing the cap from Social Security’s portion of the FICA payroll tax would create a flatter but not a flat tax. FICA tax is levied upon the employers and employees based upon payroll amounts; there is no FICA levied upon incomes not itemized within payrolls.
Sales taxes would be levied upon all (sales transactions (i.e. sales of imported and domestic products sold to customers within the USA’s jurisdiction; all purchasers within USA’s jurisdiction would be subject to sales taxes.
Under a Vat method, enterprises pass their sales tax costs directly to the purchasers of their products and their incomes subject to income taxes are reduced by the amounts of any VAT expenses they have not yet directly passed on. Regardless of individuals’ income sources and regardless of their employment on or “off the books”, all products sold or imported into the USA would be subject to a federal sales tax.
Sales taxes are truly flat taxes, and they’re significantly less regressive than our FICA payroll tax. Elimination or reduction of Medicare or Social Security benefits is of greater financial detriment to persons and families of lesser incomes.
There is no logical relationship between incomes and Medical needs but it is desirable to retain at least some of FICA’s relationship between employment derived incomes and employees Social Security retirement benefits.
A flat sales tax is comparatively more regressive than progressive income taxes but due to exceptions and exclusions, (i.e. special strokes for special folks), our “progressive income taxes ain’t that progressive. Although populists such as I would prefer that funds be created by more progressive income taxes, that is politically less achievable and if achieved, is particularly vulnerable to repeal or reduction.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Apr 21, 2014 8:24:32 GMT -6
Yes, technically a sales tax is neither progressive nor regressive. However, based on % of income, it is THE most regressive tax possible. If one person is making $6,000/month and another is making $24,000/month, and both are spending $6,000/month of food, housing, etc, a 10% sales tax on that $6,000 amounts to 1/10th of the $6K/month earners income, .................................but only 1/40th of the $24/month earner's income. In terms of % of income being taxed, the sales tax is extremely regressive. The Social Security tax problem has a very simple (technically) solution. Remove the cap on income that is taxed. At least then it will become a flat tax, instead of the regressive one it currently is. No argument there. He's abandoned every populist goal he ever claimed to advocate. I couldn't argree more. I see your point on FICA & sales taxes. But the lesser of 2 evils is still evil. Removing the cap on FICA contributions should be no-brainer for a Populist, Progressive, or any politician with a sense of basic fairness.
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Feb 25, 2014 22:23:56 GMT -6
I'll have to come back to this later. To begin with, I don't accept that 100% of employers' contribution to FICA is tacked on to the price of goods. Increased costs are never passed on 100%, because it reduces sales income more than the cost savings. To the other point, however, it's not about the net tax reduction or spending power effect on American consumers. It's about who it effects the most--the lower income consumers who spend a higher fraction of their income, or the higher income consumer who spend a smaller fraction of their income. And converting SS contributions into sales tax will reduce aggregate spending, because it will take spending power away from lower income-higher% spenders, and give it higher income-lower% spenders.
Unlawflcombatnt, the figures I provided are for the portion of employment income entirely spent; not invested or transferred in any other method. Sales taxes may be to a limited extent drafted as a more progressive.
Without reducing funding for these economic and social programs, this proposal introduces greater financial funding derived from other than wage and salary earners. The present payroll tax is much more regressive than a general sales tax. When the Democratic Party fails to hold true to their populist character and populist continue to vote for Democrats despite their betrayal of populist principles, the alternative to a sales tax is to watch Obama acquiesce and surrender. He has displayed a willingness to accept reduced Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. A federal sales tax is preferable to benefit reductions.
I’m pleased that Obama has indicated he’s removing modification of the cost-price index calculations from the discussion table. I’m opposed to reducing the updating of SS retirement benefits.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Feb 24, 2014 3:05:03 GMT -6
Things are getting out of control and something needs to change. I do believe that the FICA tax is way too large. The percentage should be a gradually increasing rate, especially for self employed individuals. To pay for this I think we need to reduce the size of the federal government. Maybe allow Federal workers to volunteer for a 10% pay reduction, 4 day work week, 9 hour days. They need some kind of carrot to volunteer for a pay reduction. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// If the proposal described within this thread were enacted the taxes paid by the self-employed would be reduced from 14.71% to be 5.93% . If you’re self employed and accept the contention that employer’s pass their FICA tax onto their customers, your employer portion of FICA is defrayed by being passed onto your customers, and 9.1% of payroll derived from FICA revenue were shifted to be 4.65 % federal sales tax revenue, both the directly paid employer and employee portions of FICA would each be reduced from 7.65% to 3% of payroll and a 4.65% federal sales tax would be enacted. Due to the employers’ FICA imbedded within all prices, present prices of USA goods are increased between 2.44% to 3.252% . If USA sales transactions are triple our payrolls, our net increase of purchase prices would be increased by 1.38% and their payroll tax would be reduced by 4.65%. Employees’ net taxes upon their spent earnings would be (0.0765 - + 0.0325) reduced to (0.03 + 0.0325 + 0.0138) (0.109) reduced to (0.0763) which is a net tax reduction of 3.27% employees’ spent incomes. If USA sales transactions are double our payrolls, our net increase of purchase prices would be increased by 0.00912 and their payroll tax would be reduced by 4.65%. Employees’ net taxes upon their spent earnings would be (0.0765 - + 0.0244) reduced to (0.03 + 0.0244 + 0.00912) (0.109) reduced to (0.06352) which is a net tax reduction of 4.548% employees’ spent incomes. Self-employed taxes would also be reduced by only 3.27% to 4.548% because the employers’ payroll taxes were and remain passed on to customers in the form of prices greater than otherwise. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Feb 19, 2014 15:29:13 GMT -6
Here is what I Posted on another forum on Oct 27, 2010 Subject: America’s economic decline www.phpbbplanet.com/damessageboard/viewtopic.php?t=22934&sid=e62ebe77ae9c5f1e679625617b02f6f4&mforum=damessageboard============================================================================== There always seems to be resistance to even the mention of tariffs. What if we converted all medicare and social security taxes to a retail sales tax? I am not advocating the complete flat tax, just a small portion of it. Small changes are easier to implement than large changes. This takes the payroll tax off the back of the wage earner and the manufacturer and puts the tax on all retail goods both domestic and foreign. This will: 0) be similar to a tariff without it being a tariff. 1) get rid of the payroll tax and make it easier and cheaper to have employees. 2) simplify the tax code and make it easier on the self employed and small business. 3) not be a complete overhaul of the tax code and will probably be easier to implement. 4) reduce arguments about how much social security tax you paid in and how much you are owed, ( i.e. this is not a 401k plan ) Does this makes sense? ... TWK, Social Security retirement entitlement is not distributed equally among all retired persons but the extent of its benefits are significantly dependent upon those individuals’ lifetime earnings subject to the FICA payroll tax. Although the SS retirement program’s not a “pure” insurance program, it is logically, politically and financially preferable that we retain to some extent its insurance characteristic. SS retirement entitlement is in aggregate of great net financial benefit to elderly wage and salary earning individuals and their families and additionally it’s of significant net economic benefit to our entire nation. Eliminate that insurance characteristic and you provide a political wedge that better enables conservatives to undermine if not eliminate the SS retirement program. For the same reason I’m firmly opposed to putting an income cap upon beneficiaries other sources of incomes. We can assume that persons who earned more, paid greater taxes and it would be penny foolish to deny them their equal entitlement to the program’s benefits. By denying the wealthy of what should be their equal entitlement, you’ve slightly decreased the portion of our population, the per capita and aggregate budgeted costs due to the entitlement; but you’ve created an additional political wedge between most voters and the politically most influential segment of voters. Among the best method of retaining a viable SS retirement program is to enable the greatest numbers and proportion of our population to participate and benefit from that program. [That’s the PRIMARY REASON why conservatives are so upset about the Affordable Care Act; too many and to great of our population benefit from any viable medical insurance program]. These populist programs that are of net economic and social benefit to our nation are proportionate to income of greater benefit to those with lesser incomes. I do not want to give conservative additional opportunities to undermine such programs. I advocate equally sharing the funding of our two most expensive federal social programs between FICA and a general sales tax. Because employers’ FICA taxes are in effect a federal sales tax, this method in effect funds ¼ of these federal economic and social programs, (i.e. Medicare, SS retirement and SS disability insurance), by taxing employees directly, ¼ by taxing all sales transactions indirectly, and the remaining 1/2 of by directly taxing all USA domestic sales of both USA and foreign products. Reform of our major tax revenue souses, (our income taxes) are a separate issue and should not be co-mingled with the funding of Medicare, SS retirement and SS disability. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Feb 18, 2014 23:37:34 GMT -6
TWK, employers pass their FICA 7.65% payroll tax onto ALL purchasers of USA goods and service products. All purchasers include foreign purchasers of USA exports, all product producers includes government provided goods and services but excludes any production by employees not subject to the FICA payroll taxes.
Excluding employees not subject to FICA taxes and those working illegally off the books, employees additionally directly pay 7.65% of their gross earnings for FICA payroll taxes. Thus employees that spend all they earn are paying the equivalent of 10% to 11.2% of their gross earnings for these taxes.
I’m proposing we reduce FICA revenues by 9.1% of payroll and replace that with a 4.55% sales tax. This will reduce employees FICA taxes by 4.55% of their gross wages and their actual prices net increases will be 3% to 3.2%. Employees who spend everything they earn will experience a net tax decrease of 1.3% to 1.5%.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Feb 18, 2014 23:20:56 GMT -6
unlawflcombatnt, A sales tax is not progressive or regressive; it’s a flat rated tax that can be drafted to be more progressive to a very limited extent. It can never function in the manner of progressive income taxes; but due to so many exceptions, exclusions, differentiating between sources and/or manner of acquiring incomes, our progressive income taxes ain’t that much progressive. Yes, technically a sales tax is neither progressive nor regressive. However, based on % of income, it is THE most regressive tax possible. If one person is making $6,000/month and another is making $24,000/month, and both are spending $6,000/month of food, housing, etc, a 10% sales tax on that $6,000 amounts to 1/10th of the $6K/month earners income, .................................but only 1/40th of the $24/month earner's income. In terms of % of income being taxed, the sales tax is extremely regressive. The Social Security tax problem has a very simple (technically) solution. Remove the cap on income that is taxed. At least then it will become a flat tax, instead of the regressive one it currently is. No argument there. He's abandoned every populist goal he ever claimed to advocate. I couldn't argree more. I see your point on FICA & sales taxes. But the lesser of 2 evils is still evil. Removing the cap on FICA contributions should be no-brainer for a Populist, Progressive, or any politician with a sense of basic fairness.
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Feb 18, 2014 13:26:33 GMT -6
UnlawflCombatnt said: I see your point on FICA & sales taxes. But the lesser of 2 evils is still evil.
Removing the cap on FICA contributions should be no-brainer for a Populist, Progressive, or any politician with a sense of basic fairness. ////////////////////////////////////////////////
The less acceptable alternatives are for Obama to accept increasing the age of retirement or in any other manner decreasing Social Security and Medicare benefits. Eliminating the FICA’s payroll tax cap will not be enough. Unless we can find a method to reduce medical costs, we really can’t keep medical insurance costs from continuing to sky-rocket.
Why am I no longer able to quote when replying to this forum group?
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Feb 18, 2014 13:23:39 GMT -6
unlawflcombatnt, A sales tax is not progressive or regressive; it’s a flat rated tax that can be drafted to be more progressive to a very limited extent. It can never function in the manner of progressive income taxes; but due to so many exceptions, exclusions, differentiating between sources and/or manner of acquiring incomes, our progressive income taxes ain’t that much progressive. Yes, technically a sales tax is neither progressive nor regressive. However, based on % of income, it is THE most regressive tax possible. If one person is making $6,000/month and another is making $24,000/month, and both are spending $6,000/month of food, housing, etc, a 10% sales tax on that $6,000 amounts to 1/10th of the $6K/month earners income, .................................but only 1/40th of the $24/month earner's income. In terms of % of income being taxed, the sales tax is extremely regressive. The Social Security tax problem has a very simple (technically) solution. Remove the cap on income that is taxed. At least then it will become a flat tax, instead of the regressive one it currently is. No argument there. He's abandoned every populist goal he ever claimed to advocate. I couldn't argree more. I see your point on FICA & sales taxes. But the lesser of 2 evils is still evil. Removing the cap on FICA contributions should be no-brainer for a Populist, Progressive, or any politician with a sense of basic fairness.
|
|