out of the box thought on taxes

The land problem and its solution are the most important things you will ever read about, they are at the center of almost all social and economic problems, and there is a reason you have never heard of them: the rich, greedy, privileged parasites who run capitalist countries don't want you thinking about them.

There is really only one headache-inducing aspect, and that is the counter-intuitive effect of fixed supply. Even a lot of trained economists have trouble with it, because they are used to dealing with elastic supply and demand curves. Once you wrap your head around the concept of fixed supply, the rest of it is pretty easy.

 

OK I will go back and read some of your stuff again. But you don't expect the whole system to be thrown out and started over. You will stil have some poor some rich, some with out drive, some type "A" and some that just want a job, all with some kind of equal right to do it their way.
The original question was about taxes and compitition, and I think that's a fair question.
Thru out time the real rich have always complained about taxes and cost of labour. Big business has always looked to overthrow a government for an unjust tax. All kinds of taxes have been tryed. They have alway inlisted the middleclass to start the fight and used the poor to fight the fight.
All they ever wanted was cheap labour and no taxes. There are lots of businesses that don't need a union to be fair, wouldn't think of moving over seas and just want to compete for business. Those are the businesses that need to be protected.
I don't think it's a tax problem at all. It's a matter of human rights. But you keep looking for a new tax structure, big business will keep rubbing their hands and counting there money because they will always find away to beat your tax too.

 

Basically dictate to companies that they MUST sell the products that consumers don't want. Right.

 

Hogwash. I want Dickies work clothes. They used to be made in the USA. Globalist swine decided that it would be better to have all our clothes made in China.

If people want a foreign brand, let them pay the tariffs. It would give our textile workers a chance to make goods here and grow our economy.

 

Don't worry about not comprehending the hallucinations of the likes of Roy L and his rantings "I, geofree and Armor for Sleep". When you read hallucinations like: "the land tax will be borne entirely by the landowner, and not at all by the tenant, the consumer, the worker, or anyone else.", then you can thoroughly discount the utterer. It is an economic fact that costs of doing business are included within the price of the product.

 

Trojanni is right of course. That tax is to stop people from buying what the want an force them to buy from tarriffs subsidized/protected inefficient industries. If you let people buy what they wanted we would have no tarriffs. If you want dickies made in America you have to buy them at a cost higher then other people want to pay.

 

I don't have time for a lengthy response. The land value tax burden falls on the landowner but only at the time the tax is first levied. After the tax is levied and the market adjusts, then the land value tax is considered a burdenless tax. Here is an explanation:

 

Obviously a negative tax (i.e. government subsidies for corporations) where the People are screwed with taxation to subsidize the corporations so that the wealthy investors that predominately own the corporations make a lot more money.

Of course that is crony capitalism to the extreme and we already have crony capitalism in the US related to corporations and investors inherent in our tax laws.

My question would be why ask this question unless a person endorses crony capitalism? Exports are important but they don't represent the majority of commerce in the United States and don't relate to most small enterprises that provide the vast majority of jobs and deal in the domestic and not the foreign markets.

Personally I'm more concerned with elimination of crony capitalism because it adversely affects the workers in American as well as the small business owners. Why do so many endorse crony capitalism that funnels the wealth of the nation to the wealthy investors in large corporations instead of worring about the vast majority of Americans that go to work every day to make a living? The workers should not be subsidizing the corporations just to make the wealthy more wealthy and that's what crony capitalism does.

 

Tariffs are a non-starter because they're recepricated. For example we could impose a tariff on Chinese goods and they would then impose a tariff on US goods. That tariff would result in China purchasing Airbus commercial jets as opposed to Boeing commercial jets costing tens of thousands of jobs in the US related to commerical aircraft production.

Tariffs are a form of protectionism that merely drive up the cost of living. Yes they can result in "competitive prices" but they merely raise the cost of the import to match the cost of the domestic product. The consumer loses.

Protectionism is a real problem and we see that with our immigration laws today that are supported by US labor unions. The labor unions want to protect union jobs so they want restrictions on Mexican immigration. Because of that protectionism we have a massive Mexican industrial base just South of the border where Mexicans are producing manufactured goods that are used in assemblies in the US. Instead of having those same factories in the US by having open immigration policies we've pushed them into Mexico because we highly restrict Mexican immigration into the US today. We "assemble" the cars but then because of "Protectionist" immigration laws we outsource the production of the parts to build them.

Protectionism just doesn' work.

 

Here is another:

 

I said level the playing field. If you do that with taxes, then , that other country does it and you have to it again and so on, that is the race to the bottom, not competition.

 

Never signed a lease have you. The shop owner pays rent plus his share of the taxes, sewer, water, snow remover, parking lot cleaning. It's all in the lease.

 

I think Roy has found a plan that the right and left can agree on, anything but Roy's plan.

 

End our warfare-State and replace it with a truer welfare-State so we can end income taxes for real persons in our republic.

 

How much welfare will be enough? Before obamacare we had welfare for the elderly the sick the out of worker the non working and for those who couldn't afford food and shelter. Would you expand it into other areas, or is your problem these plans fail to achieve their desired goals inefficiently?

 

NAFTA Had something to do with factorys built in Mexico, WTO has something to do with Countrys giving their companies an unfair advantage by lowering tax rates.
Both of these are put in place to level the playing field and to make for fair trade, mostly they protect the company. Using slave labour or something close to it just gets the comment "human rights" from time to time but it only seems to count for free speech.

 

Again, you want the government to force the sellers to do what the consumers don't want. It's more efficient to make some products overseas, that's why it's done. Some consumers would rather pay more for an American product, but most just want the cheaper product. You'd rather not see consumers get what they want.

 

It's all about competing in the market place, we all want our companies to compete with offshore companies, it's just good for the country if we do thing to help that. We do all kinds of things to help them in the market, new ports, hwys, R&D and schools. Is all of that stuff corperate welfare? All welfare does is help the poor who are in the market for food and shelter.

 

That goes both ways, many people might want the buy made in USA but they can't afford to.

 

ah horsecrap. That tax would come from somewhere, and you're not explaining how it would 'best' be levied but, more importantly than that, 'company' and 'corporation' are not interchangeable words. There's no hidden motive to support crony capitalism, that's hogwash. I simply think how our taxes effects our global competitiveness is worth considering, not as a sole factor in determining what tax system we should use, but as A factor. Consider - when we levy corporate, income, payroll, and property taxes, that is all a part of the cost of American companies doing business, right? Now imagine a foreign company that doesn't have those taxes, but a sales tax. If the company is exporting, it doesn't have any tax costs built into it's production, giving it a heavy edge over an American company IN AMERICA.

Obviously I've created two imaginary examples with such stark differences that rarely exist just to make a point, but the point stands - methods of taxation effect global competitiveness, and that's something worth considering. You may be 'more' interested in other factors, but you shouldn't use only one factor in making you determination.

 

thanks for not answering the question

- - - Updated - - -

and so, because they prefer a lower price, they buy the foreign one. It's rare that people have literally NO CHOICE in regards to $.

 

That is likely true for many but if you look at the working poor, sometimes it is a choice between eating and clothes. For some Walmart would be a step up.

 

It's not hard to see which way you lean on the subject, but I like they way you have asked for input from both sides. Just saying!!

 

Since you obviously didn't go to the link and read the rest, I will post the remaining relevant parts:

So as you can see, the full burden of the land value tax falls on the landowner, at the time the tax is levied, and can't be passed to consumers, producers, tenants, or anyone else.

What this means is that if you abolish income taxes and sales taxes, the wages of labor will rise and the prices for consumers will fall as these tax burdens are removed from the economy; then because the land value tax is a burden-less tax, its use as a replacement will not effect the level of wages or the prices of consumer goods. For producers and consumers, the land value tax is identical to no taxes at all, and that will increase our competitiveness.

 

That means they don't like it for the price Americans are selling it at, if we are open to other markets perhaps someone can fit that consumers need for the price they are willing and able to pay. Win Win.