Ron Paul raises $3.5 million in 1 day

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Ramo
What's a fair-wage tariff (sounds like a terrible idea)?

Read my post 2 or 3 above.

[Ramo]

I'm not sure Paul would be happy with protectionist tariff measures either . Frankly, neither would I.

Not so sure. He wants to pull out of NAFTA, the WTO, shut down the borders, etc. Very bizarre king of libertarianism...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
I'm not talking pure protectionist. I'm talking about wages only. If some other productive benefit can occur thats fine. I would only apply the difference in the slave labor non-benfit wages to the prevailing American wage for the same product or service.

But, even if u want to call it protectionism, whats wrong with America "protecting" American jobs and the American standard of living.

"Pure protectionist" or not, it is a protectionist measure, no? And what's wrong? I don't particular care about "protecting" American jobs. What about the relatively higher paying jobs that Indians or Chinese are getting as a result of oursourcing efforts? What about the lower prices American consumers are getting?

I see freer trade as a net win. It reduces prices for American consumers and companies and increases the number of better paying jobs for people in other countries. It isn't like the US has some sort of employment crisis due to jobs going overseas (if you've noticed employment numbers). And it benefits the GDP in the US as well as foreign countries.


Of course the other question becomes what about states (like Southern states) that due to less worker protections is able to hire people at lower wages than states with greater worker protections? Or is it because it is all the US, its ok? But don't the greater worker protection states lose out on protecting their jobs and their standard of living?

[Deity Dude]

I never said Ron Paul supported it (in fact I specifically said this wasn't his plan)- but I know he has said he doesn't support "unfair" free trade.

It was just said earlier that it was bat**** to say you could do away with the Income tax without either a) crippling government or b) raising taxes on the poor and middle class elsewhere to pay for it. So I proposed a plan that did away with the income tax without raising other taxes on the poor or middle class and wouldn't cripple the budget..

[Ramo]

By making goods really expensive. You realize that you're just proposing a sales tax on foreign goods, right (which has all the same problems as a general sales tax, plus other ones)? And how would you determine which products were made from unfree labor? How much trade do you think that is?

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


"Pure protectionist" or not, it is a protectionist measure, no? And what's wrong? I don't particular care about "protecting" American jobs. What about the relatively higher paying jobs that Indians or Chinese are getting as a result of oursourcing efforts?

I would argue that it is the job of the leaders of China and India to worry about thier standard of living and the job of America to worry about the American standard of living. Until there is a single world government people elect the leaders of thier government to do best for their citizens. (At least they should)

[Berzerker]

Nafta is not free trade and the WTO infringes upon national sovereignty and federalism with a foreign court dictating trade policy.

As for the borders, some libertarians believe we own the country and can decide who can come in and who cant, especially during a war with out of control borders.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
Kuci, stop being a dick and think about the numbers involved. It's pretty easy to do. It's almost impossible to get a progressive tax distribution because rich people generally spend a much lower percentage of their income.

They spend it on something, even if that's just stocks. VAT is not just a sales tax. It modifies, directly or indirectly, the price of every item on the market, because it applies to every step of economic activity.

First of all, the VAT is bounded by what the poor can reasonably pay (before getting the exemption back).

Why before?

Let's say it's 100%. That sets an upper limit on the tax rate of the very rich, the proportion of their income that they spend. It's typically fairly low. Hence, why Bill Gates is sitting on that huge pile of money. Unless you want to tax the poor by by a huge factor of their income, you're going to have hedge fund managers and the like with a negligibly low tax rate. I would guess that you need to get down to $1 million/year (probably lower) to get anything close to a ~1/3 spending rate (roughly the same rate as the highest income tax bracket) so it'd have to be regressive past that point. It's really, really easy to see how this system would not be progressive..

This is all invalidated unless you can defend the original assumption.

As for the alleged simplicity, are you insane? Can you imagine the nightmare of nearly everyone collecting their receipts for the EITC, tallying it up, the government checking for fraud, etc., etc.? That'd be horrible. And that's not even considering the collection of the VAT.

It would be just like the normal income tax, except just a few straight multiplies instead of tons of exemptions. It would also dramatically simplify the rest of the tax code.

Hell, you could even do a sort of reverse automatic withholding.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Ramo
By making goods really expensive. You realize that you're just proposing a sales tax on foreign goods, right (which has all the same problems as a general sales tax, plus other ones)? And how would you determine which products were made from unfree labor? How much trade do you think that is?

Sure, goods that are currently imported from slave labor wage countries would go up in price. But no one is forced to buy those goods. If you think low prices on junk at Wal-Mart is economic heaven while American jobs keep going overseas - I would argue you are wrong. At least from an American perspective. But, as someone else said, it is great for China and India. I just can't imagine China and India purposely hurting thier economy to help ours.

As for determining wage rates and a fair tarriff - that would give something for all of the out of work IRS agents to do.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
I would argue that it is the job of the leaders of China and India to worry about thier standard of living and the job of America to worry about the American standard of living. Until there is a single world government people elect the leaders of thier government to do best for their citizens. (At least they should)

That's nice and all, but economic studies show that free trade raises the standard of living for people of the country that allows it. All that cheaper stuff tends to do that. In addition, people buying higher quality foreign goods gets the domestic companies' asses in gear. Sometimes it doesn't happen (ie, automobiles), but then the American consumer gets a better car at a cheaper price. And that allows for more money to spend on other things.

Increased tariffs really just lead to spending more on fewer things or consumers buying crappier American made stuff when they could have better foreign stuff. Both tend to hurt the consumer.

And besides, I'm not a "leader" of the US (nor do I intend to be), so I can concern myself with the rest of the world. In addition, if the rest of the world rises in income, then they can more easily afford our exports. So that's good.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
If you think low prices on junk at Wal-Mart is economic heaven while American jobs keep going overseas - I would argue you are wrong. At least from an American perspective.

I'm looking at the US's GDP numbers and unemployment figures, and I can't see what exactly the problem is.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
It's almost impossible to get a progressive tax distribution because rich people generally spend a much lower percentage of their income. ... That sets an upper limit on the tax rate of the very rich, the proportion of their income that they spend. It's typically fairly low. Hence, why Bill Gates is sitting on that huge pile of money. Unless you want to tax the poor by by a huge factor of their income, you're going to have hedge fund managers and the like with a negligibly low tax rate. I would guess that you need to get down to $1 million/year (probably lower) to get anything close to a ~1/3 spending rate (roughly the same rate as the highest income tax bracket) so it'd have to be regressive past that point.

Since when does a VAT not affect capital gains?

edit: Kuci beat me to it.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I'm looking at the US's GDP numbers and unemployment figures, and I can't see what exactly the problem is.

Where are you from. I see an American flag next to your name so I really wonder what part of America you are from.

Auto Industry - gone Steel Industry - gone Textile Industry - gone (need I go on)

America is becoming a country of services only. If you are on Wall Street and your service is in that market thats great - otherwise it sucks. Now its not that bad yet - but that is where it is heading.

Unemployment figures are meaningless. If I lose my $60,000 a year job and either replace it with 2 $30,000 a year jobs (lose my quality of life) or replace it with 1 $30,000 a year job (lose my standard of living) I am still employed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Where are you from. I see an American flag next to your name so I really wonder what part of America you are from.

Auto Industry - gone Steel Industry - gone Textile Industry - gone (need I go on)

America is becoming a country of services only. If you are on Wall Street and your service is in that market thats great - otherwise it sucks. Now its not that bad yet - but that is where it is heading.

Unemployment figures are meaningless. If I lose my $60,000 a year job and either replace it with 2 $30,000 a year jobs (lose my quality of life) or replace it with 1 $30,000 a year job (lose my standard of living) I am still employed.

It's funny. Because I've heard this BS before. About all the manufacturing jobs leaving the US. Of course they fail to mention that total manufacturing in the country is rising and has been. Even as those jobs are leaving. Automation tends to do that.

Auto Industry, Steel Industry, and Textile Industry simply couldn't cut it. I'm actually GLAD that that auto industry in the US is failing. They make crap cars. Maybe this will help them realize what they need to do to appeal to the consumer. That's capitalism. Cut the waste and prop up the more efficient (oh, and FYI, the auto industry in the South East is booming... though mostly foreign owned companies building plants in SE states with few worker protection laws... it isn't all a race to the bottom, productivity matters too).

I am currently in Atlanta, and I see a booming economy (well, perhaps too much... as you can tell from the water problems). True, there will be some problems in the housing market, but the area has grown amazingly since 1990. I'm sure part of that may be as a result of less worker protections than northern states, but where my parents are from Jersey, it is also doing very well.

Services ain't all that bad. This also forgets, as I've said before, that manufacturing has rising. And someone has to sell all those goods, right? Someone has to perform essential services. And people are gainfully employed doing those services.

Perhaps unemployment figures are "meaningless", but that fails to account for the rise in GDP. You'd imagine that if people were taking all these low paying jobs, they couldn't even come close to affording the same services they do, driving down consumption, driving down GDP.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


That's nice and all, but economic studies show that free trade raises the standard of living for people of the country that allows it. All that cheaper stuff tends to do that. In addition, people buying higher quality foreign goods gets the domestic companies' asses in gear. Sometimes it doesn't happen (ie, automobiles), but then the American consumer gets a better car at a cheaper price. And that allows for more money to spend on other things.

Increased tariffs really just lead to spending more on fewer things or consumers buying crappier American made stuff when they could have better foreign stuff. Both tend to hurt the consumer.

And besides, I'm not a "leader" of the US (nor do I intend to be), so I can concern myself with the rest of the world. In addition, if the rest of the world rises in income, then they can more easily afford our exports. So that's good.

I am aware of economic theory, I graduated with a business degree and took numerous economics classes. The point is economics is not an exact science and there are multiple theories and viewpoints. So just because you say that is the way it is doesn't mean it.

As for your other points, I don't think Americans would mind paying more for a doll or an automobile if it meant they paid no incomes taxes and more Americans were employed in higher paying jobs. Again, China might not like it, Mexico might not like it but I think most Americans would.

Another of your points was about "crappier" made American products; I suppose all these nice lead filled prodcuts we've been getting from China are not as bad as what would be produced in the US. But, I agree with your general point. If you have a productive or natural resource or knowledge based advantage I don't propose penalizing that. Thats why I said base the tarriff on a fair or comparable wage only. For example, Japan had a productive and quality advantage in cars in the 70's and 80's. I would not have been for imposing a tarrif to penalize them for a productive or quality advantage. I just don't think America and America's tax system should subsidize slave labor wages, lack of benefits or inhumane working conditions especially on the back of Americans.

I would think a "citizen of the world" like yourself would be against America subsidzing and ecouraging those kind of working conditions.