OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[XXXIV]

I would have gone with the NY Times as thats a newspaper but Fox News works...

[wco81]

Ad nauseum snip ... There are countries which have no income taxes or doesn't levy as high an income tax but they probably don't produce a large enough population of educated labor force or a customer base with enough income to buy tickets and merchandise.

And what does all of the above have to do with the fact that IMS accepts no public funding, which is almost unheard of in the sports entertainment industry?

And it did it ever occur to you that people might have even MORE discretionary income to attend events like races if there was no income tax? A lean, efficient government like the one outlined in the Constitution can collect enough revenue from non-income taxes to provide for basic services such as schools, roads, police/fire and military.

It's a pipe dream in America, where everyone wants a handout. But it's the America that SHOULD be reality.

Take care,
PK

It means IMS might not have a customer base which could afford its product if not for the fact that govt. programs made a population of skilled workers who can afford such entertainment.

Govt. paid for most of your customer base's primary and secondary education.

Govt. may have directly or indirectly paid their wages. In 2007, a substantial portion of the new jobs reported each month came from the govt.

So the point is, what kind of a market would motorsports have in countries with minimalist govts.?

[Feanor]

That's the rub, all modern, industrialized nations have progressive income taxes. Well I don't know about China and India, which will join the G8 in GDP terms if they haven't already.

I remember reading in an Economic textbook that China had fixed income taxes for certain businesses. That is, the business had to pay a certain amount of tax to the government every year, and every cent over that figure they were allowed to keep. That's actually more of an incentive to to be productive than having no income tax at all.

[Jackdog]

John Edwards= Out of a million sperm,he was the fastest?

[pk500]

So the point is, what kind of a market would motorsports have in countries with minimalist govts.?

You're mistaking minimalist government with no government. A minimalist government still would have revenue for schools and basic services, the types of services which would create jobs. And many of the services now provided by government would be privatized, which still would create jobs.

But yes, the number of government jobs would be slashed because the number of government boondoggle programs would be reduced. And there's little doubt that the private sector could handle most of those services more efficiently than government, which would eliminate layers of redundant positions that now exist in government.

But the additional capital that would be in pockets due to the lack of taxes would provide economic stimulus.

Ever wonder why so many businesses have left the "Rust Belt" of the U.S. for locations in the South? It's not the weather -- it's the drastically lower price of doing business due to lower taxes.

New York state hemorrhages business every year due to its oppressive taxation. Yet New York state politicians continue to scratch their heads and wonder why businesses are leaving the state for points south.

Try as you might, you never will convince me that the tax-laden, socialist system that you seem to espouse will work more efficiently and benefit its citizens more than a minimalist government that provides fundamental services for its citizens, such as schools at all levels, police/fire, highways and national defense.

Take care,
PK

[Jackdog]

So the point is, what kind of a market would motorsports have in countries with minimalist govts.?

You're mistaking minimalist government with no government. A minimalist government still would have revenue for schools and basic services, the types of services which would create jobs. And many of the services now provided by government would be privatized, which still would create jobs.

But yes, the number of government jobs would be slashed because the number of government boondoggle programs would be reduced. And there's little doubt that the private sector could handle most of those services more efficiently than government, which would eliminate layers of redundant positions that now exist in government.

But the additional capital that would be in pockets due to the lack of taxes would provide economic stimulus.

Ever wonder why so many businesses have left the "Rust Belt" of the U.S. for locations in the South? It's not the weather -- it's the drastically lower price of doing business due to lower taxes.

***New York state hemorrhages business every year due to its oppressive taxation. Yet New York state politicians continue to scratch their heads and wonder why businesses are leaving the state for points south.

Try as you might, you never will convince me that the tax-laden, socialist system that you seem to espouse will work more efficiently and benefit its citizens more than a minimalist government that provides fundamental services for its citizens, such as schools at all levels, police/fire, highways and national defense.

Take care,
PK

I agree man.

***All I have to say is Michigan.

[wco81]

So what is an example of this minimalist govt. which collects no income taxes but still offers services (which it seems, are those that you cherry-picked as being essential, because a lot of other libertarians are against publicly-funded education for instance, while some conservatives apparently believe in private police and private military contractors)?

This Wiki article (it's not complete, as it omits China for instance) lists the income tax systems in various countries and at the bottom, lists some countries with no income taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax

Few if any places you'd want to live in. Maybe visit but not live. Some of those countries have other income (i.e. oil) while others like Somalia, you wonder if there's much of a govt. at all.

But this discussion of income taxes doesn't really pertain to this or any other US elections. Very few people are running on eliminating income taxes. If they do, it's usually in the guise of flat or "fair" taxes, which is an attempt to reduce tax receipts overall and get rid of things like basic eduation (they want to opt out of public schools with vouchers or home-school, for instance).

In this election, it's about tweaking the income tax system, raising rates for some taxpayers, reducing rates for others.

[Jared]

The far greater factor for the move of Rust Belt jobs to the South is that the Rust Belt economy is reliant on heavy manufacturing, steel, automobiles, etc. The weakening of those sectors of the economy, due to globalization, etc. caused those problems.

And as for Michigan, it's 49th out of the 50 states in state tax revenue as % of income, which includes all taxes. I couldn't find any data specifically on state business tax, but my guess is that it wouldn't bump Michigan up too much higher. Taxes may be a small factor, but the Rust Belt's problems are primarily due to the effects of globalization on the Rust Belt economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels

[XXXIV]

So we are argueing for more taxes?

Yeah baby tax me!!!

[fsquid]

http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/corp_inc.html

[pk500]

And as for Michigan, it's 49th out of the 50 states in state tax revenue as % of income, which includes all taxes. I couldn't find any data specifically on state business tax, but my guess is that it wouldn't bump Michigan up too much higher. Taxes may be a small factor, but the Rust Belt's problems are primarily due to the effects of globalization on the Rust Belt economy.

If the problem with the auto industry is globalization, then why are foreign auto manufacturers building their U.S. plants in the South or in states that give massive tax breaks?

Toyota built a plant in a depressed area of Indiana because the state gave Toyota $75 million worth of incentives and tax breaks.

Mercedes built its plant in Alabama.

Of Honda's 11 vehicle (car, motorcycle, ATV) plants in the U.S., none are in Michigan. One is in Indiana, which again gave huge tax breaks so it could land the site and the job, and a longtime major plant is in Ohio. The others are in North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia.

Ford, Chrysler and GM -- powerhouses in the Michigan economy -- are getting killed by their foreign competitors, which are building plenty of cars in the U.S. in factories either in the South or in Rust Belt states that are offering huge corporate tax breaks. Why? Because those lower tax rates or big tax breaks put people in those states to work, many in high-paying manufacturing jobs.

It's no secret: Companies move or build facilities in the U.S. where incentives or lower tax rates make it cheaper to do business.

Take care,
PK

[XXXIV]

It's no secret: Companies move or build facilities in the U.S. where incentives or lower tax rates make it cheaper to do business.

Take care,
PK

Happening in Chicago/cook county for years now....Jobs leaving or being lost....but to make up for the loss of those tax revenues when business is lost....these mother f***ers just keep raising the taxes....Its disgusting.

Good thing I dont own a gun

[wco81]

Don't those foreign makes have a lot of foreign-sourced content?

Like imported raw materials or parts made by other vendors which go into the cars?

So even if those cars have final assembly here, a certain percent of the content was imported?

[FatPitcher]

It depends on what you think of more progressive versus more flat taxation. For example, I don't think it would be fair to tax someone making $25k a year at similar rates as someone making $250k a year. If you subscribe to progressive taxation (as do most nations in the Western world), then those discrepancies, as long as they aren't too big, are fair.

It depends on what you think is fair. If you think taxing people more simply because they can afford it is fair, then we are never going to agree. If electric company charged you 5 times more than your next door neighbor, even though you used less electricity, simply because you could afford to pay that rate, would you think that is fair?

Aslo, I've never seen any of the "soak the rich" types say exactly what is a fair rate or even show an understanding of how taxes and the red tape that comes with them are economically harmful. They always just want the rich to pay more.

I am fine with not taxing people for whom the taxes would be an unsurmountable burden. Heck, I am not even against the idea of an income tax where one citizen has to pay higher taxes than another one even though they get somewhat less from the government in return (unlike pk, because I think property taxes are the worst kind).

No...the article made the claim that the economy has grown faster due to the tax cuts, which they have no evidence for. Since the economy has been on a downturn, I have no idea how they can make such a claim.

The tax cuts were several years ago, and the recession that triggered them was short and mild. Since then, other factors have slowed it down again, but I don't think there's much argument among economists that the tax cuts did not improve the economy, or that those tax cuts are in any way related to the current slowdown. In other words, it's pretty much common knowledge, so why go to great lengths to show proof when the article is about something else?

I don't know that there was anything close to a substantial increase in AGI due to closing tax loopholes and lower tax rates...and I'm skeptical that it accounts for anything more than a minimal increase. Though if you have evidence for your claim, I'm all ears.

And I'm skeptical that the actual incomes of the top 1% went up 30% in 4 years or whatever. BUT I can't find the study I read to support that...and it's mostly beside the point. So, OK.

Because % income paid is a much more honest way of laying out tax burden than what the article did. As for your original point, the level to which people will "vote themselves money" is likely directly related to the income inequality in the country. If 95% of the population pays no taxes because they're dirt poor, then yeah, they'll vote themselves money. But in the United States, we've got a large enough middle class that is taxed enough such that tax increases would hurt their bottom line. To put it another way, what is the income level where someone's tax expenditures is the same as what they get from taxes? Is that number a majority in the country? And how do they vote?

It's not an honest way of showing who's paying to keep the country running, which is my main point. You have to look at the big picture for that, not at what rate individuals are paying. 60% of the country's bill is footed by 5% of the population. 97% of the country's bill is footed by 50% of the population. I don't have a problem with that situation, necessarily, but usually when you are giving someone a ride in your car, you get to pick the radio station.

And as for abolishing the income tax...

What about the possibility that, in order to be more than a weak economic nation, things like income tax are necessary in order to develop the infrastructure for the nation to really grow? The United States has had income tax from 1913 onward, and the top rate from 1939 until 1981 was over 50%. And I think the economy was doing pretty well then...

The private sector did fine developing infrastructure before income taxes, as the transcontinental railroad shows. That's not to say that there are no market failures where the government is more efficient than the market, because there are, but there's a wide gulf between the remedy for those failures and the bloated behemoth we are paying for now.

Even today, some of the most successful transportation projects are toll roads and bridges.

[FatPitcher]

The far greater factor for the move of Rust Belt jobs to the South is that the Rust Belt economy is reliant on heavy manufacturing, steel, automobiles, etc. The weakening of those sectors of the economy, due to globalization, etc. caused those problems.

And as for Michigan, it's 49th out of the 50 states in state tax revenue as % of income, which includes all taxes. I couldn't find any data specifically on state business tax, but my guess is that it wouldn't bump Michigan up too much higher. Taxes may be a small factor, but the Rust Belt's problems are primarily due to the effects of globalization on the Rust Belt economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels

Globalization is certainly a factor, but part of that equation is that labor unions have made it unreasonably expensive to produce things. Even in Japan, which is certainly not a nation of sweatshops and cheap labor, auto manufacturers such as Honda are quite successful. I think labor unions were absolutely necessary once upon a time, but after achieving their legitimate goals, they got greedy at the same time that globalization took away their leverage.

[FatPitcher]

Sorry if pointing out the obvious holes in your libertarian fantasy gets you mad.

The real fantasy is that there would be no roads, education, security, etc. if the government didn't provide them. Kind of scary that people have been so conditioned to depend on the government for so many things that they cannot even imagine what things would be like otherwise.

[XXXIV]

Sorry if pointing out the obvious holes in your libertarian fantasy gets you mad.

The real fantasy is that there would be no roads, education, security, etc. if the government didn't provide them. Kind of scary that people have been so conditioned to depend on the government for so many things that they cannot even imagine what things would be like otherwise.

Very well said...Very!

[FatPitcher]

At this point, it's hard to have a debate with you because you are arguing against well-established economic principles, not against my opinions. Do I really want to try to teach economics on a message board to someone who thinks they already know more than enough? Hardly.

Do you have a doctorate in economics? Outside of that, all you are doing is saying, I don't have to post anything worthwhile, because I assume I know more than the next poster. You've done it three times and this time with a quote for who knows where.

It's easy to say your are right without actually proving it.

If I had a Ph.D. in economics, my brain would have exploded after reading something like this:

Technically it's not that. It's not a transfer of wealth. What you described would be communal government. We don't transfer money directly to those who produce less. If we do, I need to sign up for that program because I'm missing out on a lot of money I didn't earn.

Not knowing the difference between wealth and currency shows a pretty fundamental lack of knowledge about the subject matter. Not saying you're dumb, just that you should probably read up a bit. Or, if you insist on not reading up, then maybe it's better just to listen instead of participating?

[pk500]

Don't those foreign makes have a lot of foreign-sourced content?

Like imported raw materials or parts made by other vendors which go into the cars?

So even if those cars have final assembly here, a certain percent of the content was imported?

Yes, and the same is true for parts of GM and Ford vehicles built in plants in Canada and Mexico.

So I'm not sure of your point.

Take care,
PK

[XXXIV]

Don't those foreign makes have a lot of foreign-sourced content?

Like imported raw materials or parts made by other vendors which go into the cars?

So even if those cars have final assembly here, a certain percent of the content was imported?

Yes, and the same is true for parts of GM and Ford vehicles built in plants in Canada and Mexico.

So I'm not sure of your point.

Take care,
PK

Is there really ever?...

[pk500]

Globalization is certainly a factor, but part of that equation is that labor unions have made it unreasonably expensive to produce things. Even in Japan, which is certainly not a nation of sweatshops and cheap labor, auto manufacturers such as Honda are quite successful. I think labor unions were absolutely necessary once upon a time, but after achieving their legitimate goals, they got greedy at the same time that globalization took away their leverage.

Don't even get me started about unions.

Back in the Gilded Age, they were necessary to protect workers from harmful working conditions, from ungodly hours and to ensure a living wage.

Much like the Federal government's bloat, unions now try to extract exorbitant pay scales and benefits for workers in return for as little work as possible. An example is how the UAW was able to get Ford, GM and Chrysler to pay lifetime health benefits for more its workers. That total is now nearly 1 million workers.

Thank God GM was able to shed that liability to the UAW. If the union is so f*cking great, than it can administer and ensure health care for its members. Shouldn't that be why members pay dues?

Or how about tenure for teachers? That's arguably the largest crock of sh*t in the American workplace. Why should someone all but be guaranteed a job just because they've been on the job for a certain amount of time? How does that breed competition among teachers for jobs and to keep jobs?

If I don't do my job, I'm out on the street even though I've been at IMS for 10 years. If I was a teacher, I'd be tenured and could coast. I'm not saying all teachers coast; in fact, nearly all are dedicated to their kids. But tenure gives them every reason to float if they wanted.

And before all of the teachers here squawk, my sister is a teacher. And I've told her my feelings precisely. She is a dedicated professional, though, like nearly all teachers. But even the idea of tenure boils my ass.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

Don't those foreign makes have a lot of foreign-sourced content?

Like imported raw materials or parts made by other vendors which go into the cars?

So even if those cars have final assembly here, a certain percent of the content was imported?

Yes, and the same is true for parts of GM and Ford vehicles built in plants in Canada and Mexico.

So I'm not sure of your point.

Take care,
PK

Point is, you tried to imply that those companies set up factories in certain states only because of tax breaks.

It's not as simple as you portray, just as your usual rant against unions, which are not exactly dictating compensation and benefits terms to companies these days.

[wco81]

Sorry if pointing out the obvious holes in your libertarian fantasy gets you mad.

The real fantasy is that there would be no roads, education, security, etc. if the government didn't provide them. Kind of scary that people have been so conditioned to depend on the government for so many things that they cannot even imagine what things would be like otherwise.

Speaking of fantasy, where are these mythical companies capable of replacing the large-scale infrastructure?

There are toll roads in the US and other industrialized countries. But most of the roads are financed by govt. The reason is, industry would cherry pick a few of the most profitable roads and under-serve other areas.

Look at the UK's privatization of railroads. Companies bought up a few profitable routes but then took shortcuts on maintenance. Less reliable before privatization.

Texans are facing big rises in electricity this summer, as the deregulation of electricity is complete. At first, consumers chose some companies offering the lowest retail rates. But turns out many of these companies couldn't stay in business. They apparently weren't paying attention when deregulation in other states screwed up rates.

[pk500]

Point is, you tried to imply that those companies set up factories in certain states only because of tax breaks.

Of course they do. Why have no foreign auto manufacturers built plants in New York, for example?

And last time I checked, Indiana isn't a state with a major port to which those foreign-made parts could be shipped. Yet both Honda and Toyota have built plants there in the last 10 years. Why? Tax breaks and other incentives provided by the state government.

It's not as simple as you portray, just as your usual rant against unions, which are not exactly dictating compensation and benefits terms to companies these days.

It's called course correction. Companies are redressing the balance of the scales of power that tilted so heavily toward unions since World War II. Just look at the build quality of cars from Detroit in the 70s, 80s and early 90s compared to foreign cars, while the UAW was continuing to exact higher wages and even more benefits from the Big Three.

No wonder Ford, Chrysler and Dodge are in such a sh*tty state right now. How can they compete price-wise with Toyota, Honda and Hyundai when they were/are saddled with paying lifetime health benefits for 1 million retired workers, all of whom already are collecting decent pensions and made decent money during their UAW-aided tenure on the lines for the Big Three?

Take care,
PK

[XXXIV]

No wonder Ford, Chrysler and Dodge are in such a sh*tty state right now. How can they compete price-wise with Toyota, Honda and Hyundai when they were/are saddled with paying lifetime health benefits for 1 million retired workers, all of whom already are collecting decent pensions and made decent money during their UAW-aided tenure on the lines for the Big Three?

Take care,
PK

There you go again injecting reality into a fantasy based communist arguement.