patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,200,614 comments by 14,213 users - Blue, Ceffer, goofus online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 25 - 64 of 82 Next » Last » Search these comments
This free trade nonsense is killing us. If you are a business, would you continue to trade with a partner when it is causing you massive losses. Put up some barriers/import taxes and other such tactics.
Instituting tariffs has hurt the economies of both countries involved 100% of the time it has been tried. Good idea.
Communism was already tried and was a spectacular failure.
No one is proposing a centrally controlled and owned means of production. Turn off Hannity. Raising tax rates to Clinton-era levels for those making more than $250k is not communism.
lostand confused
2012 Dec 12, 1:04am
Instituting tariffs has hurt the economies of both countries involved 100% of the time it has been tried. Good idea.
Proof and statistics or just more foggy nonsense.david1 says
No one is proposing a centrally controlled and owned means of production. Turn off Hannity. Raising tax rates to Clinton-era levels for those making more than $250k is not communism.
Your posts do not talk about that. As I side before in other posts, I am fine with Clinton era taxes and the automatic spending cuts of the fiscal cliff-both should happen. You don't talk about that-you talk about taking away from the rich and Warren's quotes-which is communism at its finest. Now you try and divert-not working
These people used to pay income taxes, they don't any more.
They used to make a significantly higher % of the national income as well. Again, increase the share of income of the bottom 50% to 1980 levels and they will gladly pay taxes. Here is the source below, table 5...in 1980, the bottom 50% had 17.68% of the total national income. In 2007, it was down to 12.25%. Raise that share back to 17.68% (a 45% increase) and even if they pay 20% of their total income in taxes they come out significantly ahead.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0#table5
Proof and statistics or just more foggy nonsense.
Google "tariffs hurt both countries." There is a plethora of peer-reviewed information/studies you will find from PHDs in Economics on the subject.
It is so widely accepted there is even an economics.about.com discussion.
"In almost all instances the tariff causes a net loss to the economies of both the country imposing the tariff and the country the tariff is imposed on."
http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/tariffs.htm
You don't talk about that-you talk about taking away from the rich
I talked about letting the rich leave if they don't want to pay higher taxes, which is the point of this thread. And by the way, paying expatriation taxes is not "taking" from the rich - they don't pay the tax if they don't renounce. The government still doesn't own the means of production, still not communism.
Peter P
2012 Dec 12, 1:33am
Tariff helps politicians because the clueless majority thinks it is a good idea.
If you find yourself competing on price, you may as well find another niche.
Peter P
2012 Dec 12, 1:36am
Why are corporations more efficient than governments? Perhaps it has something to do with one dollar one vote versus one person one vote.
lostand confused
2012 Dec 12, 1:39am
Google "tariffs hurt both countries." There is a plethora of peer-reviewed information/studies you will find from PHDs in Economics on the subject.
It is so widely accepted there is even an economics.about.com discussion.
You want to use an about.com discussion as proof??? You do realize that there is a difference between opinion and fact. Since you stated as fact-you provide the statistics and proof-not anonymous links.
Nope not everything on the intrerwbz supports your position-here is an article on Forbes supporting tarriffs.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2011/02/22/an-earthquake-is-brewing-in-u-s-economic-history/david1 says
talked about letting the rich leave if they don't want to pay higher taxes, which is the point of this thread. And by the way, paying expatriation taxes is not "taking" from the rich - they don't pay the tax if they don't renounce. The government still doesn't own the means of production, still not communism.
Immigrants leave their home country for a variety of reasons. Our country is known as a land of immigrants and yet we treat people who want to do the same-emigrants so horribly. You want to take their money and their livelihood and tax their income earned in other coutnries-even if they become a resident of another country for a few years. America is the only developed nation to do so and one of the few countries in the world to do so.
Then you speak with glee of taking over their money and paying off the federal deficit. Well you can do that once, what will you do after that. You think these nutjob politians on either side of the aisle will not run up the deficit again?? Then you won't have any rich people to tax .
Bellingham Bill
2012 Dec 12, 1:47am
You think these nutjob politians on either side of the aisle will not run up the deficit again??
politicians aren't running up the deficit, we are.
This is a democratic republic, not an autocratic one.
The fiscal deficit is simply money that should have been taxed in the first place.
But it's hard to launch $3T wars if you have to raise taxes to pay for them.
LBJ tried to raise tax rates 10% (!) and that was basically the last thing he did before abandoning his presidency to run his war the last year.
Why are corporations more efficient than governments?
They aren't. This is a widely believed misconception. Again, google is your friend but there were many studies undertaken of privatization in the UK under Thatcher that showed no significant difference in efficiencies between the private and public sectors.
Here is a nice summary.
This has also been shown in administrative costs of Medicare vs. private insurance in the US.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/administrative-costs/
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf
http://www.kff.org/medicare/7731.cfm
Basically, the US pays significantly more per capita for health care than countries with government health care for all. How is this possible if a private corporation is more efficient?
Bellingham Bill
2012 Dec 12, 1:51am
Why are corporations more efficient than governments? Perhaps it has something to do with one dollar one vote versus one person one vote.
nope, just survivor's bias.
Survivorship bias can lead to overly optimistic beliefs because failures are ignored, such as when companies that no longer exist are excluded from analyses of financial performance. It can also lead to the false belief that the successes in a group have some special property
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
When you tried to run governments on the minarchic principal of one dollar one vote, the tumbrels come out and the rich's pretty heads get lopped off eventually.
Plus of course currently we live in a corporatocratic system structured to benefit corporations more than individuals. This is easily viewable here:
Since you stated as fact-you provide the statistics and proof-not anonymous links.
Oh you can't use google? Ok, simply here are the links:
GDP per capita, Hong Kong (no tariffs): 49,328
GDP per capita, China (large tariffs): 8,387
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/02/weodata/index.aspx
Oh, and by the way, maybe I can't read, but that article you posted from Forbes essentially agreed with my point - the tariffs of early America did not nurture US businesses. That article was more a commentary on tariffs vs. income taxes...
CBOEtrader
2012 Dec 12, 2:36am
Basically you don't think there should be a penalty for someone who benefits from all of the social constructs in this country, from the intellectual property protections, to the infrastructure, the military, free access to the wealthiest consumers in the world, and so on, then moves and takes his wealth (that wouldn't have existed at all if he wasn't a US citizen) elsewhere?
Nonsense. You dont have to be a US citizen to invest in the US.
That means the aggregate wealth of the top 1% is 1.15M * $16.4M = $18.9T. Taxing that at 35% yields $6.6T in new tax revenue. There goes about 40% of the Federal Debt - paid.
You are desperately confused. The government taxes gains, not wealth.
“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.
“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.â€
Again, this is nonsense. You neither have to be a US citizen, or a US resident to invest in the US. Furthemore, besides the mostly wasteful US military, the benefits she says the government provides come from local sales and property taxes. The government does pay for interstate freeways systems, which I am more than happy to pay for. Roads aren't what is bankrupting our government.
lostand confused
2012 Dec 12, 2:39am
Oh you can't use google? Ok, simply here are the links:
GDP per capita, Hong Kong (no tariffs): 49,328
GDP per capita, China (large tariffs): 8,387
You are honestly comparing a country with 1/6th of the world population with a tiny colony that now belongs to China?? Look at the increase in GDP in China-they play the game very well, they artificially lower prices by capping the yuan at the rate they want-which is a form of reverse tarriff.
I can goggle-but when I state a fact, it is my job to back that up by stats-not throw some inane things outt here and hope they fit the narrative. Which is what extreme right winger do and it appears extreme left wingers too.
lostand confused
2012 Dec 12, 2:42am
Again, this is nonsense. You neither have to be a US citizen, or a US resident to invest in the US. Furthemore, besides the mostly wasteful US military, the benefits she says the government provides come from local sales and property taxes. The government does pay for interstate freeways systems, which I am more than happy to pay for. Roads aren't what is bankrupting our government
Exactly.
lostand confused
2012 Dec 12, 2:52am
Tariff helps politicians because the clueless majority thinks it is a good idea.
If you find yourself competing on price, you may as well find another niche.
So you are the only one with a clue? Yes we are competing on price. The average factory worker in China lives in a dorm , works 7 days a week and go visits his family a few times a year. Any regulations for workers safety or pollution is practically non existant.
We have one of the highest standard of living in the whole world. To compete agains that is not easy. tarriffs will tip the balance, espcially since they already do a reverse tarriff- by keeping the yuan at exactly the price they want it to be. Now in the past, nations have gone to war over much less, but hey the modern far rightist thinks all this is new and only free trade is the answer, blah, blah, blah. We don't have to do anything, no thinking, just let free market take over and sing Kumbayah and everything will magically fix itself. Rinse, repeat and then call anyone who disagrees with them clueless-as usual without any stats and facts to back them up. The far rightists and the far leftists would make a great team.
zzyzzx
2012 Dec 12, 2:57am
The wealthy are fleeing everywhere it seems...is that why Space X is booked up for a decade?
For the lower tax rates on the moon.
justme
2012 Dec 12, 3:08am
Why are corporations more efficient than governments? Perhaps it has something to do with one dollar one vote versus one person one vote.
Corporations do not operate more efficiently, as david1 explained. For example, the US Government is by far the most efficient health insurance company in the country.
Irony alert:
But as you say corporations are more efficient at BUYING VOTES, because they buy CONGRESSIONAL votes (which is the product of the election vote, that is, congressmen, rather than ELECTION votes). In other words, corporate money buys influence at the wholesale level. Public votes only affect retail politics, a.k.a. elections. Corporate money is used to buy both retail votes and wholesale votes.
Again, this is nonsense. You neither have to be a US citizen, or a US resident to invest in the US.
No one ever asserted this. The argument is from using the benefit of the social contruct of the US and leaving when the tax rates are unfavorable without penalty. The US taxes all US sourced income, regardless of owner, and foreign income of US citizens with a small exemption.
The discussion is about the "rich" leaving due to high taxes, and my point was simply, they can but will pay a penalty for doing so. Your counterpoint is a strawman against an argument neither I, nor Warren, is making.
You are desperately confused. The government taxes gains, not wealth.
The government does tax the gains for the expatriation tax - which I said - admittedly there is a disconnect between gains and wealth for the top, but my assertion is the disconnect is little. That is, the basis is very low for the ultra wealthy.
Nonsense. You dont have to be a US citizen to invest in the US.
That was never my assertion, again.
You are honestly comparing a country with 1/6th of the world population with a tiny colony that now belongs to China??
It wouldn't have mattered which countries I used to compare here - you would have had a criticism - though in culture, geographic location, infrastructure, etc. these two are nearly identical. For a quick and easy argument, there are few better. The largest two differences are tariffs and size of population. I could have chosen Hong Kong and Serbia, which have similar populations, but you would have had an argument against that too.
Bottom line is I am not going to do research on why the sky is blue - we are haggling over a widely accepted economic theory. Hell, even the article in Forbes you cited backs up the claim!
lostand confused
2012 Dec 12, 3:25am
It wouldn't have mattered which countries I used to compare here - you would have had a criticism - though in culture, geographic location, infrastructure, etc. these two are nearly identical. For a quick and easy argument, there are few better. The largest two differences are tariffs and size of population. I could have chosen Hong Kong and Serbia, which have similar populations, but you would have had an argument against that too.
You can't make an argument for your case, so you claim your argument is the only way and so you don't need proof. It would if you make a valid comparision. Chinese GDP has improved by leaps and bound despite their tarriffs and currency ploys-or rather inspite of it.
Now you claim Hong Kong as an example of low tarriffs, but they also have very low income taxes. It starts at 2% and the highest is 17% . Dividends, capital gains, inheritance etc is not taxed at all. Also Hong Kong does not tax income earned outside Hong KOng. Our country does all of this and is still in a massive dark hole.
121212
2012 Dec 12, 3:39am
Why are corporations more efficient than governments? Perhaps it has something to do with one dollar one vote versus one person one vote.
Your a foolish, foolish person to believe such horseshit. Gullible comes to mind.
121212
2012 Dec 12, 3:41am
Excess taxes will eventually make a country become like south Africa. France is on it's way. America is next if the freeloaders get their way.
Just like under Clinton and even under Reagan when they were even higher.
How foolish are you?
Peter P
2012 Dec 12, 4:28am
Excess taxes will eventually make a country become like south Africa. France is on it's way. America is next if the freeloaders get their way.
Just like under Clinton and even under Reagan when they were even higher.
How foolish are you?
It is not the present state but the trend that is worrisome.
And the 250k = rich nonsense.
Poverty is not caused by failures. It is caused by successes. Meeting a low bar is much worse than missing a high one.
You can't make an argument for your case, so you claim your argument is the only way and so you don't need proof.
This is funny. What do you want, a mathematical illustration on deadweight loss? I provided a link to an about.com page with a quote, you counterargued with a genetic fallacy.
Here is a nice paper summing the correlation analysis.
if you want the theory behind the correlation, here it is. I know you will revert to another genetic fallacy with this link, but it may help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss
Basically, this shows that imposing a tariff increases the market price of a good above the "free" world price. This causes an shift to the left in the supply curve. That means the market will now demand less - meaning the export nation will sell less. This also hurts the economy of the importer, as some of its consumers will no longer purchase the product at the new price. This loss of economic activity in the import nation hurts its economy because resources are not being used efficiently. Some production in this country will shift to this new "Tariff Protected" inefficient industry and away from some other unprotected efficient industry. Here is a more thorough anlysis of deadweight loss if you require.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w6852.pdf
You call me a Commie but this is essentially what Communist states have done to great detriment of their economies. So much production is focused on inefficient industries that the entire economy has become inefficient. Look at North Korea or Cuba.
So there you have it. Correlation analysis. Mathematical theory. Layperson explanantion. Historical example.
What else do you need?
Vicente
2012 Dec 12, 5:13am
This loss of economic activity in the import nation hurts its economy because resources are not being used efficiently.
The most "efficient" solution is fire most of your people, reinstitute slavery. Or use robots or create Morlochs to fill this role. I'm not much for "make work" jobs either, but frankly there's an endpoint to the worship of perfect efficency I don't like either.
lostand confused
2012 Dec 12, 5:21am
This is funny. What do you want, a mathematical illustration on deadweight loss? I provided a link to an about.com page with a quote, you counterargued with a genetic fallacy.
Here is a nice paper summing the correlation analysis.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=high%20tariffs%20hurt%20both%20countries&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.203.4703%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=R-XIUM-rOZGB0AHZ54G4Dg&usg=AFQjCNFjYnnKfu5w3YP6RPYt9gwzRhKl0Q
if you want the theory behind the correlation, here it is. I know you will revert to another genetic fallacy with this link, but it may help you:
This is funny. The title of your paper is ,"WHY DID THE TARIFF-GROWTH CORRELATION CHANGE AFTER 1950?" Yet you claim tarriffs never work . Throwing out some big words and theories and claiming what you say is absolute fact just because you say it is-does not make it so.
The problem isn't that they don't pay taxes, the problem is they don't make enough to pay taxes.
I am sure if you asked any one of the 47% who don't pay taxes they would gladly pay them if you doubled their income.
Really?? Like your favorite pinhead lib, Elizabeth Warren said, "...on the roads the rest of us paid for." Yup, she said it, the roads that the REST of us paid for.
Look, if a person is really disabled or elderly, fine I'm all for supporting them. But ONLY they should not be paying taxes, everyone else should pay a portion of what they earn to help the country continue to survive. No, we don't need to punish you if you succeed, afterall, if you fail (with the exception of union industries that Obama props up like GM) we don't bail you out. If I drop $250K or $1Million dollars into a company and for whatever reason it fails, I fail. Point of fact, a company that my wife just started work for about a month ago looks like it's about to go under, and there appears to be about $250K of one man's savings that will be going down with it. The government and people like you don't care, but if he had made it, THEN you want to tax him extra. Amazing, and by the way, you might want to find a better source that Warren to get quotes from, she's far from brilliant.
Raising tax rates to Clinton-era levels
No, if you want to raise the rates, raise them for EVERYONE to what they were during that era. ALSO lower the spending (in terms of amount spent as a % of GNP) to what it was during the Clinton era. Deal???
Vicente
2012 Dec 12, 5:42am
I'm surprised Conservatives are holding up the French as an example.
Well, an example of correct behavior anyhow. NeoCon favorite jokes about the French usually include one about them surrendering or fleeing before the Germans. Everything about them is detestable apparently. I suppose RICH French people are a different matter, money is the sort of cologne that makes 'em swoon. THESE fleeing Frenchmen, man they are HOT. Aside from being beautiful and well-dressed, they are CREATORS and once they desert the country France is going to turn from Paradise into Hell on Earth overnight. In this case fleeing shows how GREAT they are.
I vaguely recall some previous instance of France's Rich & Powerful fleeing the country. How'd that work out in the long run? I forget. Did those rich folks retain their grip or did it all slip away.
Vicente
2012 Dec 12, 6:45am
I note in the article that the 3 example rich peopler are "former CEO", and "once headed" and "founder".
So, none of these people are any longer "job creators". A handful of Crotchety Richy Rich hangs their hat on "taxes" as the reason they are leaving, instead of some other reason. From this we are supposed to deduce that France will be crippled and that all rich people will avoid the new taxes thus.
Anecdotes and supposition. We'll see how the revenue goes next year. Running an experiment is always better IMO than WAG.
Geez, more entitled whining rich people whining about tax. Geez, STFU and pay for a proper tax expert.
I am sure if you asked any one of the 47% who don't pay taxes they would gladly pay them if you doubled their income.
Then I'd say you live in an alternate reality.
Not only do people who make more get taxed more, but they lose their welfare bennies as well. Working single moms in particular.
I am not sure what the law is but I doubt that anyone can be on welfare for life at this point. Also, I believe there are some restriction such as not being able to have $2,000 in the bank account. No self respecting person will aim for such bastardly existence as if it's some sort of gold raining from the sky. So, yes I do believe that most normal people would deem a higher paying job/pay more taxes more favorable than live like a rat/pay no taxes.
FortWayne
2012 Dec 12, 7:59am
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Bellingham Bill
2012 Dec 12, 8:19am
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
meanwhile, here in the real world:
http://emsnews.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/happiest-nations-are-mostly-northern-socialist-nations/
does it trouble you that your worldview is entirely fraudulent, built on lies you've been told?
FortWayne
2012 Dec 12, 8:26am
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
meanwhile, here in the real world:
http://emsnews.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/happiest-nations-are-mostly-northern-socialist-nations/
does it trouble you that your worldview is entirely fraudulent, built on lies you've been told?
Somehow that North Korea place or Russia make it on that list.
Bellingham Bill
2012 Dec 12, 8:39am
Somehow that North Korea place or Russia make it on that list.
Our economy is about as broken as NK's or Soviet Russia's actually.
Only the charity of the world is keeping things together here.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/NETEXP
Your ideology has no answer to this, childish beliefs in fantasy don't work in the real world.
What does demonstrably work is whatever Germany, Sweden, Norway, and a few other countries are doing.
Not that they are perfect, but I would much rather be a random newborn in those countries than here, lemme tell you.
This is funny. The title of your paper is ,"WHY DID THE TARIFF-GROWTH CORRELATION CHANGE AFTER 1950?" Yet you claim tarriffs never work .
Read more than the title. The paper was given for its correlation analysis.
Fine, if you want to go strictly on the data only, I amend my statement to tariffs hurt both countries 100% of the time since 1950.
Colonialism had a unique effect on international trade. Since I don't see India, China, Korea, et al, allowing themselves to be exploited like that going forward, the data in that paper backs up my point. So I say again:
Your idea of increasing tariffs/trade barriers will hurt the US economy.
Do you amend any of your comments?
lostand confused
2012 Dec 12, 9:54pm
Your idea of increasing tariffs/trade barriers will hurt the US economy.
Do you amend any of your comments?
No it will not. We have massive trade deficits. Your own example of China with high tarriffs shows your position is wrong. Despite their high tarriffs and very high protectionism-they have had the biggest boom in known history. So there.
Conditions always change-a few centruies ago, India and China were the biggest game in town and then shifted to the west. it may be shifting back or it may be shifting to a different multi-polar world-who knows. If you don't change with the times and adjust and stick with a one policy fits all position-you will perish.
Despite their high tarriffs and very high protectionism-they have had the biggest boom in known history.
You don't understand - the analysis was performed of tariffs/trade barriers independent of all other factors. That is, China would had even greater growth without the protectionism.
This means that if we institute a protectionist trade policy, we may, or may not, have a period of growth. But the prepoderance of data and economic theory shows that this type of policy has an adverse effect on growth.
If we institute a protectionsist trade policy, growth will not be as robust as it would have been otherwise, or decline will be more severe that it would be otherwise.
There are certainly many other factors - should we continue to develop natural resources re: fracking, and the reserves are as large as some of the claims, we have the opportunity to be a net exporter of energy. This would certainly lead to economic growth - and would probably be large enough to overcome a protectionsist trade policy.
My comment was simply - your suggestion that instituting a protectionsist trade policy would help our economy is contradictory to economic theory and empirical data. The opposite has been true, especially since 1950.
« First « Previous Comments 25 - 64 of 82 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://homes.yahoo.com/news/is-this-your-chance-to-pick-up-a-chateau-on-the-cheap--190653964.html
The French are fleeing. A spate of proposed tax hikes is leading hundreds of wealthy French to consider leaving the country and putting their homes on the market, real-estate agents say.
Several high-profile businessmen have already packed their bags. Former L'Oréal Chief Executive Lindsay Owen-Jones has taken up residence in Lugano, Switzerland. Belgium now counts Amaury de Sèze, who served as chairman of supermarket giant Carrefour, as a local. Nicolas Chanut, founder of French investment advisory firm Exane, moved to London.
Flush French are fleeing the new government's attempts to repair France's public finances by increasing taxes on salaries, capital gains and household wealth. Among the controversial proposals in the 2013 draft budget is a 75% tax rate on salaries higher than $1.3 million, up from less than 50% currently. "Wealthy French are not that masochistic," says Mr. Jottras.
Some aren't waiting for the new tax laws to pass, blaming their departure on what they call the government's antibusiness mentality. "Entrepreneurs have the impression that the country doesn't appreciate them," says Mr. Boichut. One of his clients with dual French and Italian citizenship is giving up his French passport in disgust, he says.