On Mar 30, 7:19*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Mar 30, 10:24 am, "
wrote:

On Mar 29, 11:38 pm, RicodJour wrote:

I'm snipping a lot since we're both bloviating. *





The taxes are on foreign companies. *The taxes only infringe on your
behavior if you've developed a preference for buying foreign goods.
If you prefer "cheaper at all costs", well, then, you've got it and it
doesn't sound like you're too thrilled with it.

This is where you are just plain wrong. *Look up the definition of a VAT
tax. *The EU VAT is a good example. *It is a VALUE ADDED TAX and
it applies at each stage as goods make their way to the consumer.
Company A buys copper ore for $100 and they pay a 20% tax on it, $20.
* They turn it into copper sheets and sell it to company B for $150.
* Company B pays the 20% tax on the $150, $30 and hands the
payment over to Company A. * *Company A then
takes their taxes paid previously, $20, from the $30 just collected
and sends the $10 net tax to the govt.

That's how a VAT works and it hits virtually all goods sold within the
EU. *The fact that it's collected also on imports coming from outside
*is a side point. *That portion is roughly equivalent to a tariff, as far
as appearances to the foreign company. * *And in
*the end, that $10 is coming out of the pocket of the consumer.

I am not arguing the definition of VAT - I did not write the Revere
Copper thing, but I agree with its sentiments. *You seem to be getting
hung up on the term, so...you win. *It's not a VAT, it's a tariff or
whatever else you want to call it.

The point is that it is a VAT and how it works is important. The
same
value added tax that is imposed
on every similar product in the EU. So, imposing that tax on imports
into the EU means the playing field is level.

What you are apparently proposing is that the US do the same. That
would require us to impose a 20% value added tax on all our goods.
Then when you buy that Revere pot, it will cost you 20% more. And
just like the EU, if someone imports a copper pot from China into the
US, it would then have the same 20% VAT applied to it.

Is that what you want? I might be convinced to go with a VAT
tax provided other taxes, ie the income tax were eliminated. However
it is a regressive tax which will hit low income people the most by
adding an additional X% tax on all the products they buy. From that
perspective, a VAT is like a national sales tax.


*Since _every_ other country in the
world uses whatever-you-want-to-call-it, except the US, it's not
protectionist, it's survivalist. *Does that make it more palatable?

It doesn't change anything and you're still confused.. The VAT is
NOT a protectionist tax. It's applied on all the products within
the EU. So, when you buy a copper pot manufactured within
the EU it carries the exact same 20% VAT tax as a pot that is
made by Revere and imported. In other words, with regard to
the VAT, it's a level playing field.

Actually, it's quite shocking that Revere would not understand
the very tax they are railing on about.



Yes, exactly. *I see no problem with people buying American to support
America. *And what exactly is wrong with a protectionist tariff if it
is merely bringing the US into line with what _every_ other country in
the world is doing? *It is not protectionist so much as the current
state of affairs.

The VAT tax you are referencing applies not only to imports in those
countries, but also to THEIR OWN GOODS, at every step of the
manufacturing process. * Hence, applying the VAT on imports is
already leveling the playing field. *Going back to the copper example,
if they didn't apply it to the imported copper product, then that
overseas company would have an advantage over a company in
the EU.

All I get out of that is leveling the playing field, and I agree with
you - that's what I'm advocating.

But what you don't get is with regard to the VAT it is level as it
exists
today,.




If any country or company has a bitch about tariffs and unfair trade
*practices, they can bring a case to the WTO.

You want a different world - me, too.
Unfortunately we live in this one and it is simply stupid to put some
theoretical ideal ahead of pragmatism, particularly when that
theoretical ideal is based on some theoretical philosophy of how
things should work in a "perfect" world.

I'd argue that pragmatism is precisely what has gotten us to
where we are. *Republicans in particular, became pragmatic
and said to hell with conservative principles. *As long as they
got their piece of the spending pie too, they were OK with
a huge increase in all kinds of prgrams and wasteful spending.

Agreed. *Eisenhower and his military-industrial complex, eh? *By
making sure that parts are procured from almost all states, and
therefore almost all states benefit, is a simple way to get 'local'
support from your friendly how-much-can-I-get-for-my-state?
representative/senator. *Take the F-35...please! *I particularly like
this part about the program: "But in 2011 it was revealed that only
50% of the eight million lines of code had actually been written and
that it would take another six years and 110 additional software
engineers in order to complete the software for this new schedule."

The tail is wagging the dog in many areas. *That's all I've been
saying. *We are not in disagreement on that at all. *There are big
bloated programs, there's enough blame to go around, but first we have
to flippin' fix the damned thing, or at least get it back on track.
Right?

Your car breaks down, you're stranded, a guy offers you a ride, but
he's going out of your way, but it's closer to your destination - all
other things being equal, do you accept the ride? *That's all I'm
saying. *I don't care whether the guy offering the ride is a blue/red
stater, dem/rep, black/white, Muslim/Christian, or anything else - I
just want a ride that will help me out.

Yes, but the obvious problem is that the ride that is offered,
as many of us see it, is 180 deg in the wrong direction. Hence, we
don't want the ride because it's going to take us further away
from where we need to be.


Again, a VAT and an import tax are two very different things. *A VAT
is more like a national sales tax that applies at every sale all along
the production path for an item. And
with a VAT, there is paperwork at every step of the production of
a product, each time it moves from one company to another.

Okay, abracadabra, it's no longer a VAT. *It's a whatever-you-want-to-
call-it, and is only applied to imported goods. *That reduces the
amount of paperwork and makes it a one-step process. *It's self-
funding, too.

Then you are arguing for a new tariff on all imported goods. The day
you do that, the other countries will impose a similar new tariff on
US goods
and you're back to square one. Take a look at the factors that helped
make the Great Depression worse. One of them was imposing new
protectionist trade tariffs, which reduced trade.




Then add in another 100,000 federal employees to take care of
their end of it. *Who fills it all out matters because we, the
consumer, *end up paying for it.

Yes. *Exactly. *The consumer ends up paying for everything. *Every
time, every way. *All of the time. *That's how it works. *I have no
problem with that as long as I'm getting what I paid for. *Right now,
I'm not. *You're not.

And how does yet another new tax, be it VAT or a tariff on imported
goods, solve that? It doesn't. You could sent 1 trillion more to DC
and you'd still have about the same size deficit, because they will
just spend all of it and then more too. That's the problem. It's
not
that we're taxed to little, it;s that spending is out of control.




I say those $3 hammers and all the other lower cost items we're
getting from China have a lot of benefit to all of us. *And that you can no
more stop free flowing world economies than you can hold back the tides..

This part surprises me. *You see no negative in China controlling
their currency, using vastly cheaper labor, beating up on the US
economy, and using our own short-sightedness against us?

There will always be a world of consumers. * Do you feel that China
will be "neighborly" and continue to carry the US when we are in
default?

If we wind up in default it will be because of out of control
spending.
The Chinese didn't just create a new boondoggle of a program that
s going to cost us trillions, namely Obamacare. Our own govt did
that. They didn't pass the stimulus bill that cost us $850bil and
has had little effect. They aren't the ones making the govt run
$1.6tril deficits.



*Even when the rapidly exploding populations and consumer
cultures of up and coming countries will more than offset the lost
trade? *I don't. *I see China happily relegating the US to a backseat
financially and in world importance. *Killing two birds with one stone
- removing a financial competitor and supplanting a military
competitor.

What price your $3 hammer?

I don't like or trust the communist Chinese. But you have a world
economy.
We're not the only ones buying their goods. And they are not the only
fierce
competitor we have in the world today. People made the same
predictions
about Japan, then Korea. Now it's China and India that are
developing,
producing low cost products. As they develop, China will have it's
own
problems, including the eventual liberation of the country from the
commies.

Your approach of having the govt here decide what price a Chinese
hammer
should or shouldn't be is more scary. You want them to wave a magic
wand
and levy some new tax to levy the playing field. Aside from the
obvious
problem of immediate retaliation, what makes you think the morons in
DC
know what the magic number is, what products it should or shouldn't
apply
to, etc?




It sounds like you've eliminated the possibility that anyone that
thinks other than you do can solve problems. *There are plenty of
instances where I've learned from people I've disagreed with, and even
people I've actively disliked. *No one is talking about the government
growing to take over the economy - at least I'm not.

Yet you want to institute a VAT tax here to help feed it MORE.

You do understand that the country well beyond the 'belt-tightening'
stage, right? *Short of shutting down the government entirely for,
what - years?, there's no chance that without additional revenue we're
up the proverbial creek. *I'm looking to pick up revenue from outside
the country - to level the playing field. *I am not suggesting we do
not tighten our belts as well.



Again, revenues are not and have never been the problem. When
the typical household is short of funds is the answer just ask
your employer for more money? Or is it usually to cut spending?
My God, we had Harry Reid on the Senate floor last week bitching
because the Repulbicans want to cut some programs he thinks
are essential. He cited the cowboy poetry festival that the feds
subsidize that's held in NV each year. He said "without the federal
funding, those people would not exist." I'm sure you can find
the video with google. And you want to send MORE
money to these morons?

As regards the playing field, as I pointed out above, if you levy
a new tariff, our trading partners will just counter. You think
guys like Airbus are just going to role over and not demand
their govt enact the equivalent against Boeing?







*If you could
separate the lib vs. conserv BS from the equation you'd probably find
that there's a lot of people ****ed off about the same things.

Sorry, I don't see it as BS. *I see libs wanting a permanent expansion
in govt. *Witness the healthcare debacle. *They passed a huge new
program that clearly they didn't even read or understand,
*at a time when the govt already cannot fund it's obligations.
And when they freely admit that there are billions in waste and
fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. *In fact, they had the audacity to
count eliminating that fraud to help fund the new program.
You may see that as "pragmatic". *I see it as more bad govt.

*That
cooperating with people that are, gasp!, of different mind but like
objective, would be the swiftest way to solve some serious problems.
After the problems are addressed, and steps have been taken, then we
could go back to the name-calling. *

The problem of course is that the objectives in almost everything that
matters are very different.

No. *Not it's not. *A guy wants sex, a woman wants security - they
manage. *A bank wants assets on its books, a couple wants a house -
they manage. *The _whole_ point to trading is to exchange something to
further your own personal objectives. *Do you think a guy ever went to
a bank and said, I don't need a mortgage, but I want to take one out
and pay you interest so your financials are in better condition?

That approach is exactly how we got where we are today. The way they
got along was by spending without regard to the consequences of where
the money was going to come from. The Democrats with social programs.
The Republicans with defense bugets they wanted and their own pork
barrel projects. And the solution to
keep everyone happy was to just get along by borrowing.

If there's gonna be a train wreck, I say let it happen now before the
monster
in DC is even bigger and more out of control. That's pretty much
where
the Tea Party is coming from.


And that's not happening, so things need to be adjusted. *The first
and foremost thing that needs to be adjusted is all of this red state
vs blue state, liberal vs conservative crap. *It's counterproductive.
It plays into the hands of those most vested in keeping big government
and big spending. *It's a ploy, and a very effective one.

Couldn't disagree with you more. *It is in fact very much about
liberal
versus conservative. * If you had conservatives in Congress and the
WH, you wouldn't have spending out of control and the govt growing
larger as a percentage of the economy. *That is fundamentally in
conflict with conservatism. *But expanding govt is a *core
part of the liberal philosophy.

You seem to think that conservatives don't spend money. *I find that
extremely odd. *How many democrats run defense companies and clamor
for war? *Why are we spending a third of a trillion on a plane when
nobody else in the world has a plane as good as our last generation
plane?


Better have that plane if we're gonna have to face off with China, no?
I do agree that conservatives may at times go overboard on defense.
However, under the Constitution it's very clear that defense is a
vital
duty of the govt. I'm still looking for the part where it says govt
has to provide healthcare and everyone must have it or go to jail.