Paying a "fair share"

Are you saying that you want it to be illegal for a worker to work for an employer without the approval of other workers?

 

I like your concern for bringing back more middle class than working poor, but to not offer tariffs on developing nations as an option is a bit disingenuous. One does not need to establish tariffs that destroy trade with these nations, but a tax to coax some of the jobs back. To argue it is impossible is to argue a sales tax makes no one buy anything, which of course would be a ludicrous claim. I can see you're a libertarian who has learned some compromise is necessary. But the simple fact is this, the only thing that truly increases the power of labor is the demand for labor. Otherwise, you're just killing businesses that can't relocate, mainly service and infrastructure jobs. How long can a nation survive on such? Especially if we wish to slow the inevitable death that globalism is bringing to our glorious market. We have already proven that the tax rate of such industry can't fuel the beast that is our modern government, and even with monumental shrinkage which seems impossible with current trends, it still wouldn't be enough. 3 jobs fighting over one worker will lift the bottom. 3 workers fighting over one job kills the bottom. And right now we have 10 - 30 fighting for the one job. We must build a dam to hold some water in, and I find someone who complains about the top pimping the rest in current decades acting like we can somehow curb it all while leaving current trade policies in place to be either dimwitted or vested in globalism to the point of being biased. Anyone who reads your posts I'm sure would agree you're not slow mentally, so what am I missing?

For the record, I care not about principals when it comes to the death of our way of life. I care about results.

And please don't tell me you truly care if you're going to regurgitate the mantra "Americans need to get used to living with less" out the other side of your mouth, like most globalists do.

 

The Obama's are hypocrites just as most millionaire liberals are. Every Citizen should pay the same percentage of their Gross Ordinary Income in Federal Income tax. You earn $100.00/year, you pay $10.00 you earn $10.00 you pay $1.00. You earn $1.00 you pay .10. That's fair.

 

There is fundamental flaw in the logic.

Many mistakenly believe the loss of manufacturing jobs (where unions were historically the strongest) is due to outsourcing to foreign countries but that's not the real reason for the decline in manufacturing jobs in the US. Manufacturing jobs per capita have declined worldwide by about 40% since 1970 while production of goods has increased dramatically. More goods and fewer people to produce them is a simple fact and this is simply because Artificial Intelligence and Technology (AI&T) have made it possible.

Let me provide an anecdotal example. I worked predominately in aerospace manufacturing for my career before retirement spanning the era from hand drawn aircraft designs to today's CATIA 3-D modeling of the designs. Modern 3-D computer design programs now perform about 90% of the work that a mechanical engineer used to do when designing an airplane from tolerance build-up to finite element analysis. This was laborious mathmatical calculating that took far longer than simply drawing the orthographic design of the part. Today we only require 1/10th of the number of mechanical engineers to design the same airplane when compared to 1970 and these were upper middle income jobs. The manufacturing jobs weren't outsourced to foreign countries, they were replaced by AI&T.

Something we've all experienced in our lives is the growth of "digital money transfers" using debit cards and ATM's for obtaining cash to spend. Before the age of digital money you had to go to the bank or write a check and it required a lot of bank employees, tellers and accountants, to process the withdrawals and manually run the checks through the banking system. Those jobs have been replaced by ATM machines and check scanning software so that no "human hands" are required in most cases.

The tariffs proposed would not result in more American jobs because outsourcing is not really the cause of middle income job loss. AI&T is driving the loss of middle income jobs in not just America but around the world. It's the elephant in the living room that many apparently can't see.

http://motorcitytimes.com/mct/2011/...-manufacturing-is-not-just-an-american-thing/

 

All sorts of posters have cited automation as a major reason for the declining need for low- or mid- skilled workers, including me.

That doesn't excuse blaming wealthy people for this completely natural and expected advancement, nor does it justify harming their ability to grow business based upon it. What should be done now is to so greatly incentivize expansion of business as to overcome the shortage of old-line jobs with new opportunities.

Shrinking Government doesn't happen by increasing taxes.

 

You make a good and accurate point, but the overriding conclusion is that the U. S. Tax Code itself needs to be completely re-written to eliminate all tax loopholes, tax shelters, exclusions, exemptions, and all the pages and pages of provisions that allow the big-rich to pay little or NOTHING. There's a reason why the big-rich hire armies of tax attorneys and tax accountants -- and it's NOT so that they are sure of paying a "fair share"....

So why hasn't this been done already? Truth? Neither "Limousine Liberals" or "Fat Cat Republicans" want to change the tax code! They like it exactly the way it is!

 

1. Yes, there is the multiplier effect of money but that doesn't result in higher wages as recent facts have indicated. Between 2009 and 2012 the top 1% of income earners (investors - owners of enterprise) received over 92% of the increase in income from the recovery from the 2008 Recession while the bottom 90% actually saw personal income decline due to the Recession. Median income dropped from $52,000 to $50,000. The increased spending simply results in the "owners of enterprise" making more money because that increased income doesn't "trickle-down" to the workers.

2. Excluding the fact that taxes would have to rise substantially to pay for your proposal the problem is the same that I just mentioned. We need fewer and fewer workers every year because Artificial Intelligence and Technology is replacing human labor at an ever increasing rate. The government simply can't hire enough people to make a difference in the workforce.

FDR tried the WPA but it really didn't improve the economy for the vast majority of Americans. The economy really didn't improve until WW II drove massive military manufacturing projects that, ironically, hired women that hadn't typically been a part of the manufacturing workforce previously. WW II was funded by government borrowing and with a $17 trillion national debt the "Government credit card" is pretty well max'ed out. We can also note there was a recession following WW II as well so even the military spending that fueled the recovery from the Depression resulted in a Recession.

The costs of such a program can easily been seen if we look at the 2009 Stimulus. The "cost per job" for the government was roughly $400,000 while the job might have paid $50,000/yr to the worker. As noted taxation would skyrocket to fund the proposal. The proposal would cost trillions of dollars and our total general tax revenues are only about $2 trillion per year. Income taxes would have to double or triple to fund the proposal and there just isn't enough money to fund it based upon the total personal income in the United States.

 

How about abolishing all income and cap gains tax, and having sizable estate taxation, as it used to be? Get rid of NAFTA, GATT, etc, and go back to a time where taxes were levied on foreign business in exchange for a right to sell their goods here.

Shrink Government in the process. Hugely. Greatly limit its ability to tip the playing field in favor of one group over another.

 

True... but I do want to revise our tax codes in a fair manner that fully funds all authorized government expenditures and people wouldn't need an army of tax accountants and lawyers.

http://www.politicalforum.com/budget-taxes/399015-creating-fair-taxation.html

 

The expansion of enterprise is driven solely by consumption which is a point that many fail to recognize. A business expands to meet the demands of the consumers and they do so without "outside" investment. Virtually all business expansion is funded by the enterprise itself and that expansion is "tax deductable" so the taxes on profits don't diminish the ability of the enterprise to expand based upon cash flow generated from sales.

I'm not one of those that blame the "wealthy" for the loss of jobs due to Artificial Intelligence and Technology (AI&T) but point out that the "workers" are not benefiting from it. Everyone needs to benefit from the applications of AI&T because it was the workers that, through their labor in providing services or producing goods, provided the revenue to the enterprise that allowed the enterprise to invest in the AI&T.

Ultimately, as I've suggested, I support negoations between the workers and the enterprise that can only be accomplished by organized labor. The individual simply doesn't have the power of negotiation. With negotiation there is the ability of the "workers" and the "owners" to reach a mutually favorable compensation contract that is entered into vonlutarily.

As a libertarian I support negotiated contracts that are voluntarily entered into that benefit both parties to the contract.

 

I don't really want to have to care about Income Tax, as long as I can "blame the right" for it due to Their insistence on a warfare-State over a more cost effective welfare-State.

 

Expansion of enterprise is a product of entrepreneurship; it's stupid to list consumption first. First, has to come someone willing to risk capital in order to create a business which can produce something for consumption, and in most cases there is no guarantee that consumption will happen or will continue.

I've responded to this nonsense from you twice now. If there was no outside investment, there would be no such thing as venture capitalists or investment banks.

An existing business expands by tapping lines of credit; credit provided by outside investors. I won't tell this to you again.

New businesses are nearly exclusively funded from outside investment. I won't tell you this again either.

Derp. They're being replaced. Of course, these workers can be intelligent enough to get trained to service such technology.

It was the company which provided them a job in return for their voluntarily provided work in the first place. The business owes them nothing.

Alsonotreally. The day of the Union is dying. Individual value will be realized by individuals. You just got done admitting that robots are replacing people. So of what worth is forming a union for people who are no longer needed?

Start a robot union. If you can convince a robot to join your union, I'll stop laughing at the ignorance in your posts.

Nonsense. I negotiated with my last employer just fine, and no union was there to assist me. An individual who provides services that an employer wishes to utilize has as much power to negotiate as ever.

Union power rested solely upon a business' need to have workers. They have automation now. Unions are dying. Bye bye.

You are not a libertarian. Your ideology is all over the map, and fraught with inconsistency.

 

The real reason the U.S. lost 5.7 million manufacturing jobs in the last decade was due to the decline in manufacturing output, which in turn was caused by U.S. manufacturing losing out in global competition.

During the 2000s, 13 of the 19 aggregate-level U.S. manufacturing sectors, which employed 55% of manufacturing workers in 2000, experienced absolute declines in real output.

For example, motor vehicle output decreased 45%, textiles 47%, and apparel 40%. In other words, manufacturing establishments were producing less, and so of course they employed fewer workers.

But the real numbers are actually worse than the official government figures. The current assessment tools used to measure manufacturing output are skewed due to the massive overestimation of output of the computer and electronics industry (NAICS 334) in the 2000s.

According to official Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data, real output in NAICS 334 was over 5.17 times higher in 2010 compared to 2000, an increase of 417 percent. If these numbers are accurate then close to 15% of total U.S. GDP growth in the 2000s came from this one sector, despite the fact that sector employment declined 43% and sector shipments decreased 25% during the same time period.

What’s going on? The principal reason for this disparity is the massive quality improvements seen in the computing sector during the 2000s. “Moore’s Law” enabled massive increases in computer power, performance and storage which the current BEA analytical model measures as growth in real output.

As a result, when measured properly, total manufacturing output actually fell by 11% during the prior decade (a period when measured GDP increased by 16%)—likely the only decade in American history (other than perhaps the Great Depression) when absolute U.S. manufacturing output fell.

As a result, ITIF estimates that over 60% of U.S. manufacturing job losses in the 2000s were due to competitiveness challenges, rather than productivity gains.

While this was occurring, and while our leaders could not agree on whether it was a problem, other nations such as China and India were greatly increasing market share in the same industrial sectors, through coordinated national efforts to expand innovation, productivity and exports.

And these nations are only increasing their efforts to further advance their economies at the expense of U.S. manufacturers and workers.

We can expect overall manufacturing output, and the jobs that are based on it, to continue to recede unless we address the real problems we face. Namely, how do we make American firms more globally competitive to increase output, production and real growth? But that will be the topic for another day.

Robert Atkinson is the President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation and the co-author of Innovation Economics: The Race for Global Advantage.

 

Do you support the ability of someone to enter into employment outside and independent of any contract negotiated by others, such as a union? For example, let's say Acme Co has an agreement with Union X. Do you support the right of Joe Schmoe to negotiate his own contract with Acme Co independent and separate from Union X?

 

So I guess all the off shoring and outsourcing that took place after NAFTA and the trade agreement with China is just a figment of our imagination.

You guys crack me up.

World wide figures in production efficiency don't provide proof that AMERICA didn't lose jobs to GLOBALISM.

It is no different than when people scream younger generations will have it worse off and you all say "comparatively - world wide they're richer than the rest".

Either remember where you came from, or be hung as traitors with the rest when nationalists take over.

Your Americans. Show some (*)(*)(*)(*)ing loyalty to your working class and national market.

 

I believe convincing the Judicature to simply draft some of the wealthiest to "do their Chore" for their Republic; may be a simpler option for "judicial activism", in that alternative.

Especially,

if they know they don't Have to run for re-election.

 

I know, I know.

A tax on trade will destroy global trade with developing nations.

Sales tax made it to where no one will buy anything.
A property tax made no one own homes.
An income tax made it to where no one works anymore.
The trade deals didn't result in losses of jobs. It was all machines, and the trade deals were just for fun.
Our only options are either to force fast food joints to pay living wages because they were the poor schmucks to set up shop in industries that can't screw the rest by relocating, or to give power back to unions of industry that only exist in Mexico and China. Wait, I mean that exist with the machine people, since none of that really happened.
And of course, lets ignore the fact that rich land owners involved in farming are still allowed to practice protectionism, because hey, their bread and butter is land not labor, as they are already allowed to pay scraps to illegals.

We'z workin' po typs beez so luckeez we gotz yo braney typs to savez us from ourselvz. Youz sure dooz care bout uz.

 

what about general forms of taxation over direct forms of Taxation, merely Because general Welfare said so?

 

The new age political mind needs to realize what globalism does to all your beliefs.

The top cannot argue that redistribution of THEIR wealth is wrong on a national level, while condoning the redistribution of the American working class' wealth to foreign nations and their markets.

The working class cannot argue against free trade with developing nations while arguing that taking from the rich to give to the poor is acceptable on a national level.

In order for there to be truth... there must consistency whenever said "truth" is applied.

There is only one truth = National Capitalism. Labor in control of the state, since the wealthy are now globalized and can't be trusted to run our nation. With the means of production still under the control of the rich, since workers have been programmed for decades to hate the wealth that commerce generates, shooting themselves in the foot.

National Capitalism. Anything less is treason.

 

Perhaps government "servants" should be taxed on all of their fringe benefits.... such as multi million dollar golf games, and other extravagant extra curricular activities,

 

And so does Obama im sure.

 

The concept of double taxation is not based on the entity level through governmental policy. It is an accounting principle for taxation. The concept of a deduction by one entity is generally an income by another entity is the formulation of taxation within the accounting rules, GAAP or IFRS. If a transaction cannot be deducted with a transfer of payment from one entity to another is still taxed by both entities, then that transaction meets the double taxation principle. Thus it is the source of income and not the leve lf the entity that defines double taxation.


You have pretty much demonstrated your lack of knowledge on taxation and accounting. You have also demonstrated your lack of knowledge on economics and economic policy. You are still entitled to your opinioin no matter how uninformed it may be.

 

Following all the tax laws IS USING all the tax loopholes. Using the tax loopholes is simply another way of saying tax avoidance, not tax evasion.

 

Yes, all enterprises originate from an investment but these are not "outside" investments.

Of all 'outside' investment transactions only about 0.00005% result in the funding of an enterprise. Remember that only a direct stock offering (IPO) actual funds enterprise and there are very, very few of these compared to the trillions of individual security transactions that take place every month. In reviewing one month I found that only about 25 million IPO stock shares were put on the market and there were 150 trillion stock shares, bonds, futures, and other individual security transactions during the same month. Do the math.

Virtually all expansion of enterprise is funded though revenue, not external investments that are not actually required for expansion. If a company has a good cash flow and profits from sales it can reinvest gross profit or, at worst, merely borrow the money if necessary for expansion.

Of course investments alone do nothing without sales (consumption). The poster child for this fact is Solyndra that went bankrupt even after securing close to one billion dollars in funding. It went bankrupt because it couldn't sell it's products and no amount of money would have kept it from going bankrupt because it couldn't sell it's products.