A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Come now. Read above.

There are times we should acknowledge when a system has become common throughout the world and we are out of step - as with social security taxes.

There are other times where we should lead. After all, being the world's largest economy has its advantages.

What are you looking for, a simple set of rules that says "free trade = good", "tax = bad", "teacher's union = satan"? Head to Spankyland if that's the case, we don't sell that magical horseshit here.

Didn't you start this whole thing by accusing me of being on a slippery slope when I advocated a balanced approach checking free market principles with limited social policy constraints?

One could say you started your argument from Spankyland.

But I wouldn't, because that's just a cheap debate trick.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There are times we should acknowledge when a system has become common throughout the world and we are out of step - as with social security taxes.
.

You still haven't explained to me how the social security tax is not fundamentally an income tax, and how, in that light, you can say that we aren't in step with the rest of the world, which also has an income tax. Indeed, in Europe, the income tax is equal to, if not higher than, our combined income tax and social security tax.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You still haven't explained to me how the social security tax is not fundamentally an income tax, and how, in that light, you can say that we aren't in step with the rest of the world, which also has an income tax. Indeed, in Europe, the income tax is equal to, if not higher than, our combined income tax and social security tax.

Because it's capped/regressive? Those are the only things I can see. I don't agree w/G3 that it is not an income tax, though. And I think you and I have come to an agreement on how to structure a VAT here.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Didn't you start this whole thing by accusing me of being on a slippery slope when I advocated a balanced approach checking free market principles with limited social policy constraints?

One could say you started your argument from Spankyland.

But I wouldn't, because that's just a cheap debate trick.

I started this looking for the fool who would argue free markets as an aboslute - you didn't bite, Burger did. I suspect you and I agree more than not.

Somewhere along the way, Burger focused on my particular feeling that social security taxes are a way we shoot ourselves in the foot on exports; so, we've talked social security taxes, though he keeps wanting to broaden into every other kind of tax. I get the sense he believe that free markets are some holy grail, yet tax policies that equalize playing fields are unnecessary or unimportant. I don't get it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Because it's capped/regressive? Those are the only things I can see.

See, G3? Those are reasons to be against the soc. sec. tax as currently implemented. I acknowledge those are reasonable arguments, although I disagree with them (I've said it before, the cap is relevant to the total benefits available in retirement, which also makes it not regressive). If you don't like SS taxes, fine, say so, and propose to increase the income tax commensurately. But don't dress it up as harming exports.

BTW, whatever happened to my proposal to increase the gas tax and exempting the first $4k of income from SS (or whatever amount needed to make it revenue neutral)?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Because it's capped/regressive? Those are the only things I can see. I don't agree w/G3 that it is not an income tax, though. And I think you and I have come to an agreement on how to structure a VAT here.

Fringey. The "lost" manufacturing jobs here paid $20 and more an hour to do assembly line work. The same jobs in Mexico pay less per day. How much in China? lots less.

The job loss has nothing to do with taxes or burden from enviromental rules- that makes it worse maybe but the price of labor alone clinches it.

edit: from a lefty labor union anti-Nafta diatribe:

• Even the typical $4/day wage in Mexico’s maquiladora manufacturing plants is considered too high by many corporations. Before NAFTA, some 550,000 workers toiled in these plants. After seven years of NAFTA, that number peaked at almost 1.3 million. In mid-2003, the Financial Times reported that almost 500,000 of the 750,000 new maquila jobs that sprouted up after NAFTA had moved on to take advantage of $1/day wages in China, Vietnam and Indonesia. As General Electric’s head of Mexico operations Edmundo Vallejo told The Wall Street Journal in April 2003: “Mexico still has a lot to offer. But two of its advantages--low cost labor and cheap currency--are gone.” Mexican workers’ wages have not risen, rather GE, like so many other corporations, has moved on to countries with even lower wages, labor and environmental standards.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Because it's capped/regressive? Those are the only things I can see. I don't agree w/G3 that it is not an income tax, though. And I think you and I have come to an agreement on how to structure a VAT here.

Umm, when did I say it's not an income tax?

The employee side of wage taxes are income taxes, though the base is gross income rather than some form of net and the base is also narrower than most income taxes. The employer side of the wage tax is, of course, a consumption tax, though Burger might argue it is a hidden income tax on the employee.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I get the sense he believe that free markets are some holy grail, yet tax policies that equalize playing fields are unnecessary or unimportant. I don't get it.

See above. You're never going to equalize regulatory playing fields, which is what you want, unless we all join the UN and let them set policy. For that matter, we haven't even equalized the field within the United States. I suspect Massachusetts is still bitching about losing jobs to Alabama, Mississippi and North Carolina. Same problem--lower taxes, and lower labor costs. Why should the good citizens of those states be forced to capitulate to the socialist policies of the Commonwealth in the interest of "harmony"?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If you don't like SS taxes, fine, say so, and propose to increase the income tax commensurately. But don't dress it up as harming exports.

You don't think adding 15% to the wage element of the cost of goods affects exports?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Umm, when did I say it's not an income tax?

The employee side of wage taxes are income taxes, though the base is gross income rather than some form of net and the base is also narrower than most income taxes. The employer side of the wage tax is, of course, a consumption tax, though Burger might argue it is a hidden income tax on the employee.

I think that there are numerous studies on the incidence of various taxes (i.e., who actually pays them). I used to be a research assistant for an economist that studied that stuff.

I think there have also been studies on what rate a flat tax would have to be, and/or what rate a VAT would have to be, to be income-neutral with the current tax system. Probably including variants where FICA was subsumed (i.e., became purely a welfare system that is paid for out of general revenues, and none of that crap about the "insurance" aspect) and where it remained separate. Might be interesting/helpful/enlightening to read some of that stuff.

I was going by what Burger said about you saying on the income tax thing. I now bow out, since I think we've had this conversation a meeeeelyun times about taxes, and who actually pays them. Throwing in "is it an even playing field with the rest of the world" doesn't really change anything, esp. because it's not like the rest of the world is consistent with taxes.

bye-bye.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by LessinSF
And the farm subsidies? Tobacco subsidies?

That is like arguing that if you want Gun Rights you should vote Democrat because the Republicans have not done enough about it.

If you want perfection in life become a theologan. In the real world we have just two partys to pick from. The Republicans are not perfect but when it comes to a comparison with Democrats it is not even close. There are not many issues where the division is more clear.

Like I said: on CAFTA there were just a few Democrats who voted for it and just a few Republicans who didn't.

You want future trade deals? Vote Republican.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I've been too busy watching Mitt Romney get all excited about his near comical campaign trying to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts. The sight of Mitt with a bunch of Christian right nuts chanting on the steps of the Statehouse is priceless. Especially for those of us who remember when he made pandering to social liberals a cornerstone of his Gubernatorial campaign.

Slave, you're the big Mitt fan. What do you think of making pandering to the religious right the cornerstone of his Presidential run?

The Fundamentalists will never vote for a Mormon. Have the Republicans ever even nominated a Catholic? You must take baby steps.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Fear not.

SF is so damn looney you guys hardly count as Americans. I don't see this wave sweeping our nation.

S_A_M

Don't blame me I live in the burbs.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
See above. You're never going to equalize regulatory playing fields, which is what you want, unless we all join the UN and let them set policy. For that matter, we haven't even equalized the field within the United States. I suspect Massachusetts is still bitching about losing jobs to Alabama, Mississippi and North Carolina. Same problem--lower taxes, and lower labor costs. Why should the good citizens of those states be forced to capitulate to the socialist policies of the Commonwealth in the interest of "harmony"?

I'm not looking for perfect equalization.

Why are you so wed to a tax solely on wages, though? What elements of that tax appeal to you?

It's true, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is grossly subsidizing profligate spending in various red states, but the competition for jobs isn't there any more. It's Canada and India that are the main competition today. And the look on an executive's face when he has just finished calculating the wage savings he gets from hiring Canadian software programmers and decided it might be worth it, and then you tell him to back out the FICA expense, too, says it all.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ironweed
Yeah, fuck those rich, complacent Americans and their desire for economic security. This country would be a lot better off if it were more like the places where those people on the boats come over from. So we could all stay hungry, like.

You have it backwards. People immigrate to this country from countrys that have "economic security". All you do when you try and instituted "economic security" is you mess up the entire economy and hurt everyone. Case in point: In most of the EU it is really hard to fire anyone. The result: Massive unemployment because no one wants to hire anyone. You only hire somebody if you absolutely have to because once you have them you can never get rid of them.

So you get all these people trying to emmigrate from Europe to American. leaving behind the "economic s"ecurity for the "economic insecurity". Yet the liberals in this country want to copy the European economic model.