out of the box thought on taxes

Only because you have bought into the view, completely unsupported by any data, that any tax system impacts competitive capabilities.

So, we eliminate all taxes.
No income taxes, no property taxes, no sales taxes, no tariffs.

How does that allow a manufacturer in New Jersey who must comply with pollution, labor, and financial laws to compete effectively against one in China who does not?

 

I don't see that as necessarily being the case and I'll provide an example.

China is a major player in the international markets (go to Walmart and see where the products come from).

China depends on a small "market socialism" work force to provide products for exports while the vast majority of Chinese live under socialism in abject poverty. China has over 1.3 billion people and less than 10% are working in "market capitalism" and receiving good wages that are funded by about one billion other Chinese. Basically China uses "socialistic slavery" to fund it's exportation of goods produced by "market socialism" and the US cannot compete on that basis.

It isn't the US taxes that are the problem, except as it addressed our overall economy, but the use of "virtual slave" labor in other countries that gives them most of their advantages. As noted though as these other counrties become more advanced economically this practice of "virtual slave" labor decreases.

 

Easy, with the elimination of all taxes it eliminates government completely so we would have no environmental regulatory control of enterprise or laws limiting the actions of the people. "Murder" is legal if there isn't a government to enforce the laws against murder it creates and enforcement requires tax revenues.

I don't know of anyone that advocates that except the anarchists.

 

it's really hard to believe you could be so naive as to believe that no tax system has any effect on competition. you somehow are so incompetent as to believe that tariffs don't affect trade?

as i said, not worth my time

 

And what you're talking about is not what I'm talking about. Yeah, we can whine and complain all day long about the unfair and immoral policies of the Chinese - still doesn't have any bearing on our current tax system.

Think of this. What a tariff? Essentially a sales tax on foreign goods. Why does tariffs work? Because they make foreign goods more costly. So what does a sales tax do? It makes all good, foreign and domestic (sold here) more costly. What do other common taxes - income taxes, payroll taxes, carbon taxes, etc. do? Make US good more costly.

The simple fact is this: a product selling in the US made in Mexico doesn't face any American taxes in production or (except for state taxes) sale. A US product, whether sold here or not, faces has the costs of taxation built in. It DOES make American companies less competitive.

Does it have a bigger effect on US-Chinese trade than Chinese tariffs and policies? Maybe not, but that's besides the point. You haven't provided a case where US taxes do not make US companies less competitive - you've provided an example of one factor not in US control that contributes to international competition. That kinda goes without saying, but we're not talking about that.

 

Not to be to picky but what ever you change, you have to look at cause and effect.
You can only make the government some what smaller with out changing the country from what most here would like to maintain for the most part.
Every right or advantage you might have cost something. I think most here have been trying to figure that out.
What did you have in mind?

 

No, you did not prove anything, just asserted some crackpot idea without actually thinking through all the consequences of its application.

 

Does anyone disagree that "full employment" in the market for labor would generate more tax revenue rather than less tax revenue?

 

You are obviously confused concerning which section of the Constitution contains the direct taxing provisions:

In the Journals of James Madison, who made a record of the arguments during the Constitutional Convention, it is shown that during the construction of the sections dealing with the direct taxation in the Constitution of the United States, it was proposed that if a State failed to pay their proportionate share of the tax laid upon it by the Congress, the government could go into the State and collect the tax directly from the inhabitants of the State. This was soundly rejected. It was also noted in the Annals of Congress, during the construction of the Bill of Rights, that an amendment be proposed concerning the same — that direct taxes, if not paid by the State, would then be collected directly from the inhabitants of the State — proposed by both the House and the Senate, and was defeated in each.


'... direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers ...' (from section 2 of Article I)

'... No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration ...' (from section 9 of Article I)

Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.

 

The question is serious.

The proposal is that some tax system will make us more competitive.

Eliminate all taxes and .....

guess what? we're not more competitive.

 

You are saying, then, that so long as there is such a disparity between economic systems, a free trade environment will work to the detriment of the advanced economic system?



.

 

I never said tariffs don't affect trade. They don't make a company more competitive all they do is introduce cost. They raise the cost of imports and in response the other country will impose tariffs that will raise the cost of exports. In general tariffs are imposed by the less competitive country and in general it is a lose-lose situation as demonstrated by the Hoover administration.

try again. maybe this time your valuable time could be spent on a valid argument.

 

Depends.

Full employment at slave wages as opposed to lesser employment at higher wages?

Your question really should be about the benefits of "full employment" rather than the tax revenues.

Employed people will not collect unemployment compensation, will rely less on welfare, this will reduce the overall cost of government.

Reducing the overall cost of government will free investment capital for business.

Which will invest in businesses and expand the job market causing an increase in wages and tax revenues.

the increase in tax revenues combined with a decrease in cost will reduce further the cost of government.

Can you see where we're going with this?

 

I just think that how taxes affect competition is worth looking at. If we replaced the corporate and income tax with a sales tax then we'd be taxing the product sold which, 1/3 times will be foreign made. This removes any advantage given to foreign products in the current system. The most common complaint against the sales tax is that it's regressive, but even that is stupid. It is no more inherently regressive than the income tax is.

 

It could be claimed that a direct tax is authorized after the first Census or Enumeration.

 

uh, yeah. If the government drafted every male over 18 tomorrow, healthy and sick, employed or not, would there be any unemployed males?

Lower unemployment is not inherently good.

 

*sigh* you're either just trying to bounce around words or are too ignorant to get it. In NYC US company A sells a product worth $10 for $12, and French company B sells a product worth $10 for $12. The US sets a 100% tariff on French imports. Does that make it harder for the French product to compete, or not?

Or are you still unable to get that trade is a part of competition in the global market?

 

We had a fed. sales tax, import tax,manufactores tax all were hidden and slid down the market place so that the last company buying wholesale had to pay it and include it in there cost price before marking it up to their sales price. Some of that or all of it was changes to a value added tax that now the end user pays, but I can't tell you it made any difference. Many of us run across the boarder to buy good cheaper, evan some products made in Canada. We still lose our production the third world countrys too. The trouble is evan if it helped, we don't trust our government and still think they charge to much.
You guys have all thoe hidden taxes too.http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/trade_programs/duty_rates/determining.xml

 

And when France introduces retaliatory tariffs? and other countries join?

The the Us company can sell inside the US but in the rest of the world they are cut off.

Perhaps a little education is in order.

"The Tariff Act of 1930 (codified at 19 U.S.C. ch. 4), otherwise known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff or Hawley–Smoot Tariff,[1] was an act sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley and signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels.[2]

The overall level of tariffs under the act were the highest in the U.S. in 100 years, exceeded by a small margin by the Tariff of 1828.[3] The act, and the ensuing retaliatory tariffs by U.S. trading partners, reduced American exports and imports by more than half. Economists agree that the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act increased the severity of the Great Depression.[4]"

In a global economy where one country is competing unfairly, tariffs can work to bring balance. Protective tariffs invariably lead to retaliative responses which tend to cause a less competitive environment.

embargoes and tariffs used to encourage a level playing field when it comes to worker income, worker safety, environmental protection, product safety will serve to level the playing field. Tariffs used to protect inefficient producers only cause problems.

 

is that relevant? You said taxes don't affect competition, and retaliatory tariffs are just one option, and don't always happen. Point is, you either deny that a tariff affects the ability of foreigners to sell their products in America, or you've been corrected and taxes do affect competition.

 

People have been argueing about taxes since time began. I think it's the wrong arguement. Either you learn from history or you will repeat it.
European countrys spent tax payers money to find a new route to India and China because some of their business were paying high high taxes on the silk and spice routes. Along the way they found new land and developed settlement where they could produce things with cheap labour and developed an army or a navy with the peoples money to protect them and their shipments.
Not many European country still own there settlements, over thrown do to high taxes.

Big business have always got there govenment to help them find and protect foriegn goods whether that's resources or labour and when they can't get there way they alway complain about taxes and some one wants to overthrow the government.

 

Why isn't full employment "inherently good"? Full employment of resources is an assumption of the theory of demand and supply and that form of "benchmark" standard.

 

why isn't it? .. uh, read the post you just quoted.

 

That is your straw man argument, not a reason why full employment isn't "good".

 

No, what you did was try to deceive people about the economics of taxing land rent.

No, actually we are very well acquainted with how tax burdens are shifted according to elasticities, and how fixed supply ensures the burden can't be shifted. You have proved that you are not aware of those facts, and will try to deceive others as to their applicability to land value taxation.