The 2004 American Jobs Creation Act, which passed with bipartisan support, allowed more than 800 companies to bring profits that were untaxed but overseas back to the United States. Instead of paying the usual 35 percent tax, the companies paid just 5.25 percent.
The companies said bringing the money home -- "repatriating" it, they called it -- would mean lots of jobs. Sen. John Ensign, the Nevada Republican, put the figure at 660,000 new jobs.
Pfizer, the drug company, was the biggest beneficiary. It brought home $37 billion, saving $11 billion in taxes. Almost immediately, it started firing people. Since the law took effect, it has let 40,000 workers go. In all, it appears that at least 100,000 jobs were destroyed.
Now Congressional Republicans and some Democrats are gearing up again to pass another tax holiday, promoting a new Jobs Creation Act. It would affect 10 times as much money as the 2004 law.
Does the prospect of starting your own business and having it become a booming success to the point you make over a mil and can go get a hedonism bot provide some motivating factor on society? Would we be worse off without it?
Well, remember that for a very, very long time, the working class didn't really have a lot of say in what they got to do. Worker's rights and all that? Fairly modern concept. Going back farther, your entire life was centered around what you did to earn your keep, and you didn't get a hell of a lot of choice there. There was a king, and the odds were good that your entire life centered around doing stuff to support him in some capacity. Then you died.
The idea is that people can pursue a line of work that interests them, and that they choose of their own free will. It's basically the idea that we stake out our section of the world and say, "THIS is how I will contribute."
Whether or not that's entirely realistic...that's a far more complex discussion.
Tax all money as it enters or leaves the country. If someone wants to make their money in another country and keep it there, then that's none of the US' business.
That's basically tariffs, and that is one idea put forth to keep domestic economies strong. However, they are isolationist and cruddy in a variety of ways, so not the best solution.
Tarrifs are if we charge for trade of goods and services. If someone wants to buy things from a foreign country, that's fine. If a foreign country wants to buy things from us, that's also fine. I'm saying we should tax international transfers that are strictly monetary.
Yes, I know somebody could effectively transfer their money over the border by converting it into commodities and then converting it back, but that's just fine. You still need to sell or use the commodity to get your money back. Any big company that wanted to move its money over our borders would need to open an importing/exporting business and find some goods to transfer. The market would still effect the value of those goods, so they couldn't get their money transferred by moving useless crap nobody wanted back and forth. They might try to pretend they are importing/exporting goods as a cover, but that's called money laundering, and we are pretty good at catching people who do that.
We only have to tax international transfers of cash or other purely financial assets. Selling bonds to someone in the UK? Tax. Trading stock with a guy in China? Tax. Wiring money to someone in Australia? Tax. Now, this kind of tax could hurt normal people who need to send or receive money from overseas. For example, how many people from South or Central America work in the US and need to send money home to their families? There is a simple solution. Only tax transfers that are over $1000. But wait, then some company will just make a ton of transfers at $999. Simple answer again. Small flat fee on all transfers. That way you actually save more money with the one big transfer than a zillion small ones, but a legitimate small transfer is no big deal.
Small fee could work, or you hit them with progressive taxes the more transfers you make within, say, a month. So guy wiring money to his family uses his freebee, big company is forced to consolidate it into one big taxable one.
That's not risk free. Gold, for example, is about to go into freefall. Also, for the amounts of money we're talking about, it would require an impractical amount of precious metals.
That's not risk free. Gold, for example, is about to go into freefall. Also, for the amounts of money we're talking about, it would require an impractical amount of precious metals.
If there are taxes to be avoided accountants will find a way.
Yes, I know somebody could effectively transfer their money over the border by converting it into commodities and then converting it back, but that's just fine. You still need to sell or use the commodity to get your money back. Any big company that wanted to move its money over our borders would need to open an importing/exporting business and find some goods to transfer. The market would still effect the value of those goods, so they couldn't get their money transferred by moving useless crap nobody wanted back and forth. They might try to pretend they are importing/exporting goods as a cover, but that's called money laundering, and we are pretty good at catching people who do that.
Multi-national corporations get around that by selling useless commodities to themselves at whatever price they want to - charging another branch (in a different country) $1000 for a pen to avoid $1000 of capital gains tax, for example.
The problem is that any tax law that is simple enough to fit into a forum post probably isn't complex enough to be fair AND avoid all loopholes.
Pens? In today's world they can just pay a subsidiary to do some computer coding. I'm convinced that paying for websites is the new money laundering system of choice for corporation's (and possibly governments. Have you seen how much money the US government spends compared to the quality it receives on the web design side of things?)
These are some decent ideas about how best to handle a new tax. I say we get this to someone who can at least justify our mistrust of government. Who wants to convert this into a decent proposal that we could get to a decent congressman?
These are some decent ideas about how best to handle a new tax. I say we get this to someone who can at least justify our mistrust of government. Who wants to convert this into a decent proposal that we could get to a decent congressman?
All of this has been hashed through congress more than a few times. In the current climate you're not going to pass anything that is this sweeping in scope. Those in power right now don't want a new tax system, they don't want any tax system.
All of this has been hashed through congress more than a few times. In the current climate you're not going to pass anything that is this sweeping in scope. Those in power right now don't want a new tax system, they don't want any tax system.
I agree, it would be difficult and is most likely futile. But shouldn't we at least try, so that someone aside from us knows that there are people out there wanting a broad change and willing to support it?
Let's do some devil's advocacy. With extreme tongue-in-cheekiness.
Wouldn't levying heavy, oppressive taxes on the poor cause the poor to work harder to move up the scale? If the tax burden was a pyramid with the heaviest percentage burden at the bottom, wouldn't that get the lazy asses off their butts? We wouldn't need welfare because you'd have to be productive in order to survive. We could rewrite the book on tax "incentives."
Not everyone can move up, and if they could the system can't function unless there are enough people at the bottom who are making enough to pay for everything. If the government somehow manages to avoid collapse while running on barely any income, they will spend most of their funds forcefully separating the poor from the money they need to live. The bottom 90% either revolts or starves to death, probably both, and then the entire system collapses because there is nobody qualified to do the work of survival, just suits and comp sci guys, so they get eaten by tigers.
Basically, plan is a net win if you are a tiger. Clearly, poor people just need to try harder at being tigers. Pull yourself up by your clawstraps, dammit!
Wouldn't levying heavy, oppressive taxes on the poor cause the poor to work harder to move up the scale? If the tax burden was a pyramid with the heaviest percentage burden at the bottom, wouldn't that get the lazy asses off their butts? We wouldn't need welfare because you'd have to be productive in order to survive. We could rewrite the book on tax "incentives."
Also they have the problem of having to spend a greater proportion of their income on mere survival. If you start increasing tax percentages on them, it becomes increasingly harder for them to be able to afford even food.
Of course, if we didn't mind so terribly much that they just starved to death in the streets that could be an OK thing.
I've been reading some small amount of historic and modern economic theory. The one thing that hits me hard is just how much this stuff has changed in just the past 100 years, and the 100 years before that. You could say that "everything changes and still stays the same" but that's not how I'm feeling. I'm actually trying to reconcile in my mind. The nature of tax and government definitely ties into this. I really wish there was a solid risk-free way to run some experiments and really test some of these theoretical systems and actually see which ones work better. It makes me sad-face. Also word of the day: ephemeralization.
Let's do some devil's advocacy. With extreme tongue-in-cheekiness.
Wouldn't levying heavy, oppressive taxes on the poor cause the poor to work harder to move up the scale? If the tax burden was a pyramid with the heaviest percentage burden at the bottom, wouldn't that get the lazy asses off their butts? We wouldn't need welfare because you'd have to be productive in order to survive. We could rewrite the book on tax "incentives."
Depending on where you set the rates it would likely result in higher starting pay and more unemployment. Who would take a $10 an hour job that only nets them $4 an hour when the $20 an hour job nets them $11?
Depending on where you set the rates it would likely result in higher starting pay and more unemployment. Who would take a $10 an hour job that only nets them $4 an hour when the $20 an hour job nets them $11?
Eventually, but what about the day after? There would be a whole lot of pain upfront there.
I think that's something that a lot of "The market will solve it!" people, the market will compensate and adjust for whatever, it is the nature of the system. The problem is that it's a terribly harsh system and terribly "unstable". By unstable I mean that it tends to fluctuate very wildly and never reaches an equilibrium state. You can try to argue that the current regulations today do the same and cause the bubbles and busts cycle we see today but you'd be wrong. We've been experiencing boom and bust cycles and bubbles since Tulips were all the rage.
Depending on where you set the rates it would likely result in higher starting pay and more unemployment. Who would take a $10 an hour job that only nets them $4 an hour when the $20 an hour job nets them $11?
Poor people who can't afford the necessary education to be qualified for the $20/hour job, for one. Also, because they're making only $4/hour at the $10/hour job, they would never be able to afford that education needed to make more money.
Which would also lead to a lot of under the table jobs.
I read a short sci-fi story a while back where the youngins had to live in large houses and consume lots of shit while those at retirement got to live in small shacks and work 40 hours a week. I don't recall exactly but I think the situation involved mass manufacturing output and not enough people to consume shit...
I read a short sci-fi story a while back where the youngins had to live in large houses and consume lots of shit while those at retirement got to live in small shacks and work 40 hours a week. I don't recall exactly but I think the situation involved mass manufacturing output and not enough people to consume shit...
That was Midas World by Fredrick Pohl, and it was terribly flawed.
The problem is that [the invisible hand of the market] is a terribly harsh system and terribly "unstable".
So is evolution, basically. Those who fit best get to enjoy a (statistcially) favorable outcome, everyone else starves to death. It probably does lead to a better outcome for the human race down the line, the question is: do we really want billions of preventable deaths on our (descendant's) consciousness?
Overpopulation can be compensated for by improving humanity's efficiency and productivity and expanding into the stars.
I'm a long-term optimist, you see.
How are we going to get to the stars when we'll use all our resources just trying keep the environment from collapsing? It's already starting, you know... Basically what I think (and I'm probably wrong): we should a) try to improve our efficiency/productivity b.1) try to match whatever population number can be sustained without strain on the environment with that level of eff/prod. instead of b.2) trying to make as many people as possible. (A noted Sci-fi writer Heinlein, f.e. , disagrees with this view)
Comments
The idea is that people can pursue a line of work that interests them, and that they choose of their own free will. It's basically the idea that we stake out our section of the world and say, "THIS is how I will contribute."
Whether or not that's entirely realistic...that's a far more complex discussion.
Yes, I know somebody could effectively transfer their money over the border by converting it into commodities and then converting it back, but that's just fine. You still need to sell or use the commodity to get your money back. Any big company that wanted to move its money over our borders would need to open an importing/exporting business and find some goods to transfer. The market would still effect the value of those goods, so they couldn't get their money transferred by moving useless crap nobody wanted back and forth. They might try to pretend they are importing/exporting goods as a cover, but that's called money laundering, and we are pretty good at catching people who do that.
We only have to tax international transfers of cash or other purely financial assets. Selling bonds to someone in the UK? Tax. Trading stock with a guy in China? Tax. Wiring money to someone in Australia? Tax. Now, this kind of tax could hurt normal people who need to send or receive money from overseas. For example, how many people from South or Central America work in the US and need to send money home to their families? There is a simple solution. Only tax transfers that are over $1000. But wait, then some company will just make a ton of transfers at $999. Simple answer again. Small flat fee on all transfers. That way you actually save more money with the one big transfer than a zillion small ones, but a legitimate small transfer is no big deal.
Before you say,"that's still money!" Please remember that precious metals are also a non-monetary resource used in manufacturing.
The problem is that any tax law that is simple enough to fit into a forum post probably isn't complex enough to be fair AND avoid all loopholes.
Wouldn't levying heavy, oppressive taxes on the poor cause the poor to work harder to move up the scale? If the tax burden was a pyramid with the heaviest percentage burden at the bottom, wouldn't that get the lazy asses off their butts? We wouldn't need welfare because you'd have to be productive in order to survive. We could rewrite the book on tax "incentives."
Basically, plan is a net win if you are a tiger. Clearly, poor people just need to try harder at being tigers. Pull yourself up by your clawstraps, dammit!
Of course, if we didn't mind so terribly much that they just starved to death in the streets that could be an OK thing.
I think that's something that a lot of "The market will solve it!" people, the market will compensate and adjust for whatever, it is the nature of the system. The problem is that it's a terribly harsh system and terribly "unstable". By unstable I mean that it tends to fluctuate very wildly and never reaches an equilibrium state. You can try to argue that the current regulations today do the same and cause the bubbles and busts cycle we see today but you'd be wrong. We've been experiencing boom and bust cycles and bubbles since Tulips were all the rage.
I read a short sci-fi story a while back where the youngins had to live in large houses and consume lots of shit while those at retirement got to live in small shacks and work 40 hours a week. I don't recall exactly but I think the situation involved mass manufacturing output and not enough people to consume shit...
If you're going to quote me, quote me. Don't start quoting others and attributing it to me.
edit: sorry about that , TheTick.
I'm a long-term optimist, you see.
Basically what I think (and I'm probably wrong): we should
a) try to improve our efficiency/productivity
b.1) try to match whatever population number can be sustained without strain on the environment with that level of eff/prod.
instead of
b.2) trying to make as many people as possible.
(A noted Sci-fi writer Heinlein, f.e. , disagrees with this view)
PS : I hate Android spell check.