U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-17-2016, 01:56 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
12,672 posts, read 9,425,981 times
Reputation: 14930

Advertisements

Nothing like the posts of the tinfoil hat brigade.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-17-2016, 08:32 PM
 
1,025 posts, read 559,196 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukas1973 View Post
Some thoughts about this topic. ...

... A big problem in the U.S. is that large corporations use a huge amount of their profits for share buybacks or acquisitions. They should invest more of their profits into the real economy. ...

... The U.S. government should hamper these share buybacks and give incentives for investments into the real economy. ...
Lukas1973, I don’t understand why you believe it’s preferable that our federal government should intervene and hinder corporate decisions to purchase back their outstanding common or shares? If that should be federal policy, how do suppose such a policy should be drafted?

There are tax laws that penalize large corporations from retaining excess wealth but I’ve never heard or read of those laws being diligently enforced. I suspect those huge corporation’s CEO’s and CFO prefer increasing their empires by acquisitions rather than distributing dividends to their shareholders.

USA tax laws favor long term capital gains by taxing them at rates extremely more favorable than regular income tax rates. Corporation’s increasing their accumulating empires are much more suitable for wealthier shareholders. This tax policy unjustifiably reduces our annual tax revenues and increases our federal debt. The entrepreneurs that steadily nurture their enterprises over their lifetimes are no less deserving than the those that grabbed their capital gains and ran but they pay unjustifiably greater tax rates upon their regular incomes.

Income tax averaging regulations:

We did have an income tax averaging laws that was discontinues when we decreased the numbers of income tax brackets and their differing tax rates. Those tax regulations did not generally distinguish between the tax payers’ sources or methods of acquiring their incomes. Lottory winners, sellers of houses that were moving into small apartments, a best selling author or an entertainer that has just hit it big would all qualify for income averaging. If a taxpayer experienced on annual boon, the tax returns could be revised as to average that income out for a duration of the past number of years. (I believe the number of years was four or five years).
Those regulations were discontinued when we reduced the numbers of income tax brackets and their differing rates for regular incomes.

I believe that income tax averaging regulations still apply to farmers and fishermen because the incomes of their enterprises are so erratic. I considered income tax averaging as preferable to our unjustifiably great tax rate discounts for investors long term capital gains incomes. I would prefer that the regulation be reinstated and the number of years' duration could be increased. We now have computers and the administrating and enforcing of those regulations would now be less expensive and less difficult.

Respectfully, Supposn

Last edited by Supposn; 08-17-2016 at 08:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2016, 08:52 PM
 
12,637 posts, read 12,071,712 times
Reputation: 17281
"Domestic made products in the U.S. are astonishing expensive"

No they are not; do I need to break out my list of US made items that are not expensive? Also, "expensive" is relative, and you forget the prestige pricing that is often added.

US produced items can be the same low price as off-shore made items, however, the profit margin will be smaller for the companies.

Hell, my wife just purchased two shirts from Bebe, both were about $50 each. One is made in the USA and one is made in Bangladesh. Two shirt, same material, slightly different design.

My Lucky Brand jeans from years ago cost $30 and were made in the USA. Another company bought Lucky Brand and off-shored its production, and the jeans now are around $70 when I last looked a couple of years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2016, 11:17 PM
 
1,025 posts, read 559,196 times
Reputation: 300
Lukas1973, USA’s chronic annual trade deficits drag upon our GDP and thus also drag upon our numbers of jobs. Anything that drags upon our numbers of jobs is to some extent also detrimental to our job wages’ purchasing powers.

I’m among the proponents for the unilateral trade policy proposal described by Wikipedia’s article “Import Certificates”.
It would greatly reduce if not entirely eliminate USA’s annual trade deficits of goods while promoting increases of our GDP and indirectly subsidizing prices of USA exported goods to foreign purchasers.

All net federal direct costs due to this policy are passed onto USA purchasers of imported goods.
The policy promotes USA’s GDP, numbers of jobs and their wages’ purchasing powers.
Refer to Wikipedia’s article “Import Certificates”.

I’m also among the proponents of our federal minimum wage rate’s being pegged to a cost-price index number. This method has enabled our Social Security retirement benefits to retain their purchasing powers.

The Import Certificate policy is applicable to all types of goods and for many enterprises the enactment of this policy changes what is or isn’t in their best interests. This policy will be of some advantage to any enterprise in the USA, (including subsidiaries of foreign corporations producing products in the USA), that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods anywhere. The policy is of particularly more advantage to those enterprises in the USA that are competing with foreign goods within USA’s domestic market places.

Despite posters expressions of disdain for USA manufacturing enterprises, it is more to USA’s advantage if our laws enable any USA domestic production, (even manufacturing production) to be more rather than less attractive to investors while not being net detrimental to the USA.

Respectfully, Supposn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2016, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
1,050 posts, read 335,731 times
Reputation: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
USA goods could be more price competitive.
________________________________________
I’m a proponent of a unilateral substantially market driven global trade policy as described within the Wikipedia article “Import Certificates”.
If it were adopted by the USA it would almost, (if not entirely) eliminate USA’s chronic trade deficits of goods; it’s would likely increase and never be a cause of decreasing USA’s gross domestic production’s reduction, (GDP).
My view of all that is "you're playing their game and they will win".

Let's look instead at the cause of our not-so-great situation:

In 1968 Time magazine published an article that said we were entering the age of technology and it would produce a major boost to productivity. The article predicted that production of good would be so inexpensive that people could work 10 hours per week for the same income. It predicted that we would enter the golden age of production, consumption, high income, and affluence. Maybe some here are old enough and read enough of Time Magazine articles that they remember this.

At the time it was not "attractive" to employers to be greedy because the top dollar tax bracket was 70%. So instead they generated tax deductions by paying workers better wages as their cost of doing business.

Ronald Reagan saw this coming too and took action to keep the gains in the hands of the top income earners. First he dropped the top tax bracket to 50% in 1986, and then he later dropped it again to the lowest it has ever been since the 1920s: 28%.

As in the 1920s, this make it very attractive to the top corporatists to be greedy. The result was huge increases in productivity but stagnant incomes for workers. http://www.epi.org/files/2012/ib330-figureA.png.538

And as in the 1920s, this has led to huge inequality and a major economic crash.

Learning lessons from the Great Depression then, what is needed is a return to the tax brackets we had pre-Reagan. Again that will "incentivize" those employers with ridiculously high incomes to share more with their workers. And an increase in incomes amounts to about the same thing as a decrease in the cost of goods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2016, 10:35 PM
 
1,025 posts, read 559,196 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kode View Post
... In 1968 Time magazine published an article that said we were entering the age of technology and it would produce a major boost to productivity. The article predicted that production of good would be so inexpensive that people could work 10 hours per week for the same income. It predicted that we would enter the golden age of production, consumption, high income, and affluence. ...
Kode, my youngest son has a similar opinion but our viewpoints differ. When USA manufactured and we had bigger defense budgets, USA was among if not the most advanced achievers of scientific researchers, discoverer’s and technological developers.

The transistor was the first electronic solid state component produced by man. (the crystal radio was dependent upon a natural mineral). The transistor was created in Western Electric laboratories. Western Electric Corp. was then the actual manufacturing arm of Bell Telephone Corp. But when transistor radio’s entered the consumer market they were all manufactured in Japan.
If our nation does not radically change our current global trade policy, the self-driving automobiles, the computers and the additional devices to enable the creation of “computer printed” products and the moving sidewalk mechanisms that will replace city’s local bus service in high density area’s will all be imported rather than being produced in the USA.
[I’m assuming our nation will wake up and actually invest into our own public infrastructure.]

Respectfully. Supposn

Last edited by Supposn; 08-18-2016 at 11:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2016, 11:16 PM
 
1,025 posts, read 559,196 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kode View Post
... At the time it was not "attractive" to employers to be greedy because the top dollar tax bracket was 70%. So instead they generated tax deductions by paying workers better wages as their cost of doing business.

Ronald Reagan saw this coming too and took action to keep the gains in the hands of the top income earners. First he dropped the top tax bracket to 50% in 1986, and then he later dropped it again to the lowest it has ever been since the 1920s: 28%.

As in the 1920s, this make it very attractive to the top corporatists to be greedy. The result was huge increases in productivity but stagnant incomes for workers. http://www.epi.org/files/2012/ib330-figureA.png.538

And as in the 1920s, this has led to huge inequality and a major economic crash.

Learning lessons from the Great Depression then, what is needed is a return to the tax brackets we had pre-Reagan. Again that will "incentivize" those employers with ridiculously high incomes to share more with their workers. And an increase in incomes amounts to about the same thing as a decrease in the cost of goods.
Kode, in the USA it was never unfashionable for entrepreneurs to appear greedy.

Workers earned wages of greater purchasing powers when there was no “right to work laws”.
Job applicants and employees are generally at a disadvantage when negotiating for themselves.
Employers of labor that object to negotiating with a labor unions would not generally choose to go to court unprotected if they were involved in a serious criminal or civil case. Certainly pay scales and working conditions are serious matters to an employee or job applicant. “Right to work” laws are in effect laws favoring employers.

I’m a populist. I believe our economic policies should be crafted to enable us to achieve the highest sustainable median wage’s purchasing powers. Our nation’s middle income earners cannot achieve that unless our nation’s lowest earners do well.

I am not concerned with income disparities of the wealthy; Capping or otherwise hindering their accumulation of wealth does not concern me; (but tax regulations that favor the wealthy is of concern).
Refer to the thread:
Replace the tax reductions upon capital gains .

The nation’s middle income earners cannot buy entry into environments where contact with poverty can more easily be avoided. Other than the poor themselves, middle income earners and their families must more often deal with the unpleasant consequences of poverty.
They generally pay more than “their share” of tax revenues and thus they pay more than “their share” of government expenditures for dealing with poverty.
Income disparity is not itself harmful to our economy but our economy is harmed by each incidence and the incidences extent of poverty. I’m concerned about poverty.

Respectfully, Supposn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 06:20 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
1,050 posts, read 335,731 times
Reputation: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Kode, in the USA it was never unfashionable for entrepreneurs to appear greedy.

Workers earned wages of greater purchasing powers when there was no “right to work laws”.
Job applicants and employees are generally at a disadvantage when negotiating for themselves.
Employers of labor that object to negotiating with a labor unions would not generally choose to go to court unprotected if they were involved in a serious criminal or civil case. Certainly pay scales and working conditions are serious matters to an employee or job applicant. “Right to work” laws are in effect laws favoring employers.
Agreed!!

Quote:
I’m a populist. I believe our economic policies should be crafted to enable us to achieve the highest sustainable median wage’s purchasing powers. Our nation’s middle income earners cannot achieve that unless our nation’s lowest earners do well.
Agreed again!!

Quote:
I am not concerned with income disparities of the wealthy; Capping or otherwise hindering their accumulation of wealth does not concern me; (but tax regulations that favor the wealthy is of concern).
But low tax brackets for the highest-income earners have created historically high rates of income going to the rich while the rest of us are neglected, and high rates of income to the rich is damaging democracy as it creates oligarchy and a strengthening of partnership between the rich and our government. Don't you care about that?

Quote:
The nation’s middle income earners cannot buy entry into environments where contact with poverty can more easily be avoided. Other than the poor themselves, middle income earners and their families must more often deal with the unpleasant consequences of poverty.
They generally pay more than “their share” of tax revenues and thus they pay more than “their share” of government expenditures for dealing with poverty.
With historically low top tax brackets today that seems to be true AND the poor get ignored more because of inadequate revenue.

Quote:
Income disparity is not itself harmful to our economy but our economy is harmed by each incidence and the incidences extent of poverty. I’m concerned about poverty.
Not harmful to our economy??? When middle class consumption falls off due to tighter incomes, demand falls. When demand falls production tightens up. When production tightens, workers get laid off. When workers get laid off, unemployment increases, poverty increases, public assistance is stretched, and the economy shrinks. What part of this do you not see?

Respectfully,
Kode
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 06:34 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
1,050 posts, read 335,731 times
Reputation: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
[I’m assuming our nation will wake up and actually invest into our own public infrastructure.]
You should look into why the U.S. is not investing in infrastructure.

Inadequate funds/revenue
Current high debt level
Republican obstruction of Congress

So it's not a matter of waking up so much as getting rid of the barriers to change. Think about this: the problem is our economic/financial situation, right? Why the problem? The problems were created. What do I mean? I mean every feature and condition of our economy is the result of laws. Laws change, and law changes (new additional laws and elimination of former laws) have created this by either encouraging it or allowing it. It doesn't happen by itself, and it isn't a natural and unavoidable situation. It was all created. And it benefits the rich and powerful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 08:25 PM
 
1,025 posts, read 559,196 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kode View Post
... But low tax brackets for the highest-income earners have created historically high rates of income going to the rich while the rest of us are neglected, and high rates of income to the rich is damaging democracy as it creates oligarchy and a strengthening of partnership between the rich and our government. Don't you care about that?

With historically low top tax brackets today that seems to be true AND the poor get ignored more because of inadequate revenue.

Not harmful to our economy??? When middle class consumption falls off due to tighter incomes, demand falls. When demand falls production tightens up. When production tightens, workers get laid off. When workers get laid off, unemployment increases, poverty increases, public assistance is stretched, and the economy shrinks. What part of this do you not see?

Respectfully, Kode
Kode, I perceive no significant economic advantages to be gained if the USA would actually “cap” individuals’ incomes but most proposals for doing so would be net detrimental to our economy.

Tax rates are not “too low” for higher income earners.
Our tax regulations discriminate between sources of incomes and/or the methods by which the incomes were acquired. The consequences of those additional regulations are to generally shift the burdens of taxes onto lower income earners.

Tax inequality is of concern; income disparity is not a problem.

Respectfully, Supposn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top