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 08-19-2016, 08:33 PM
 
1,029 posts, read 562,608 times
Reputation: 301

Advertisements

Kode, I’m opposed to wealth’s ability to sway elections.

I’m opposed to the purchase of broadcasting time or internet exposure being considered a valid deductible business expense because the government should not be determining what messages are commercial, or public education, or political.

Then it follows that if a charitable or other non-profit organization should wish to broadcast their messages electronically, they should establish a separate enterprise that purpose.
The contributions (even contributions claimed to be for purchases of goods or services) from a non-profit enterprise that participates in electronic messaging, (regardless of the electronic carriers, (e.g. wireless, cable or otherwise) should not be tax deductible.

I would permit tax deductions for creation of messages’ content, but not for the purchase of electronic messaging time or space.

Respectfully, Supposn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-19-2016, 09:10 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
1,050 posts, read 336,680 times
Reputation: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
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.
Wow! An explanation of that would be helpful. I disagree for reasons given previously. Be sure to tell me about "would be net detrimental to our economy"!! History shows me that going back to a 70% top bracket for a few years would help plenty, along with other tax measures.


Quote:
Tax rates are not “too low” for higher income earners.
They are historically low, especially for the rich. http://taxfoundation.org/sites/defau...ry_nominal.pdf


Quote:
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.
"Tax inequality"??? Do you want a flat tax? -or what does that mean?
And I've shown you that income disparity is a real problem. In this article we read "Those who make the least consume the most of their income; those who make the most tend to save a great deal, and for that reason, according to the economist Christopher Brown, at Arkansas State, “income inequality can exert a significant drag on effective demand.” -which is exactly what I previously said --in different words.

And “the economy, propped up on shaky credit, becomes more vulnerable to shocks. When a recession comes, the economy takes a double hit as banks fail and credit-fueled consumer spending collapses.” Instability is worsened by the fact that the ever-richer richest Americans “needed liquid investments into which to put their additional wealth" and that leads to a proliferation of new investment vehicles which has fueled a surge in ‘financial engineering’—the concoction of exotic financial instruments, "which acted on the financial sector like steroids.”

"So as income inequality grew, the government propped up spending by promoting easy credit for less wealthy Americans, and much of the profit from that easy credit fed the wealth of the richest, widening the gap between rich and poor yet further."

Income and wealth disparity are harmful to economic growth: http://www.walterblock.com/wp-conten...ful_growth.pdf

Respectfully,
K
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 09:31 PM
 
8,390 posts, read 7,385,412 times
Reputation: 18277
What you are discounting, is America exports some where about $1.83 TRILLION dollars of goods. And our exports are growing.

If we instituted such a hair brained scheme, other countries would retaliate, and would put millions of Americans out of work, and bring not a recession, but a depression.

We are doing trade agreements with other countries, to do away with those kind of fees that kill the market for American goods. That is a big reason that American exports are growing,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 09:52 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
1,050 posts, read 336,680 times
Reputation: 296
riiiiiiight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2016, 03:28 AM
 
1,029 posts, read 562,608 times
Reputation: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtrader View Post
What you are discounting, is America exports some where about $1.83 TRILLION dollars of goods. And our exports are growing.

If we instituted such a hair brained scheme, other countries would retaliate, and would put millions of Americans out of work, and bring not a recession, but a depression.

We are doing trade agreements with other countries, to do away with those kind of fees that kill the market for American goods. That is a big reason that American exports are growing,
OldTrader and Kode, trade deficits are a drag upon their nation’s gross domestic product; they’re a particular drag upon their nation’s numbers of jobs.
The lesser GDP and numbers of jobs due the USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods both effected by and further affect each other. Anything that’s detrimental to nation’s numbers of jobs is also to some extent detrimental to their wages and purchasing powers.

If a nation experienced a trade deficit within any particular year and if that nation did not enjoy full employment that year, the nation’s GDP and numbers of jobs were less than otherwise during that year.
This is true regardless of the nation's GDP within that particular year.

The substantially market driven Import Certificate policy is an indirect but effective subsidy of its nation’s exported goods. Due to our current laws and regulations, imported goods are to the advantage of individual purchasers but our chronic annual trade deficits of goods are to our nation’s net economic detriment.

The substantially market driven Import Certificate policy is an indirect but effective subsidy of its nation’s exported goods.

Respectfully, Supposn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2016, 05:17 PM
 
8,390 posts, read 7,385,412 times
Reputation: 18277
Quote:
BMW uses 11% of gross receipts to pay the entire workforce.
Reason it only takes 11% of gross receipts for BMW to pay the entire work force. They use very few people to build the cars. They have automated most jobs out of the manufacturing of BMW automobiles.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBmsOvbGh-Y
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2016, 02:47 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,597 posts, read 9,435,425 times
Reputation: 9210
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtrader View Post
Reason it only takes 11% of gross receipts for BMW to pay the entire work force. They use very few people to build the cars. They have automated most jobs out of the manufacturing of BMW automobiles.
Nice try but, no, that doesn't let GM off the hook. They are still siphoning off 50% of gross receipts to pay 1/1000 of the workforce. That is not defensible by any means at your disposal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2016, 08:57 PM
 
1,029 posts, read 562,608 times
Reputation: 301
[quote=oldtrader;45792134]Reason it only takes 11% of gross receipts for BMW to pay the entire work force. They use very few people to build the cars. They have automated most jobs out of the manufacturing of BMW automobiles. ...[/quote)

Old trader, what’s the point of your post? Are you contending that foreign automakers are more technologically advanced then those in the USA?

Respectfully, Supposn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2016, 07:11 PM
 
1,029 posts, read 562,608 times
Reputation: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
Nice try but, no, that doesn't let GM off the hook. They are still siphoning off 50% of gross receipts to pay 1/1000 of the workforce. That is not defensible by any means at your disposal.
Leisesturm, references to huge income inequalities continue to pop up within economic discussions. Regardless of the adjectives other attach to such inequities, (i.e. their chosen words such as “indecent” or “despicable”), huge individual persons’ or families’ incomes themselves are of little economic impact to our nation.
But those who are greatly concerned, advocate our laws should somehow cap or otherwise limit those great individual incomes believe that’s a remedy to an economic problem. They expect the consequences of such limiting or capping of incomes would enable more revenue to flow down in the form as lesser product prices and higher wages for everyone else.

That ain’t the way free enterprise and free markets work. Entrepreneurs consider factors driving their goods and service products’ costs, their competitively comparative quality and pricing within those products’ markets and their reasonable profit expectations. They’re motivated to maximize their profits rather than their employees’ incomes. They’re more motivated to use additional revenues to purchase other enterprises and increase their “empires” rather than to increase their employees’ wages.

I am very concerned about the power of accumulated wealth to effectively buy elections. Regardless accumulation’s sources, wealth’s privileged access to the ears of those that legislate or administrate our governments laws threatens the very essence of our democratic republic. Those privileges are to a great extent derived for wealth’s ability to purchase broadcasting time. It’s of great aggregate cost but the cheapest per capita effective manipulator of public opinion.

Eliminating the tax subsidy of broadcasting time costs, (i.e. broadcasting time rather than content), is not a cure but somewhat decreases the political advantages of wealth.

Refer to the thread
Government’s now subsidizing partisan political electronic broadcasting time?

Respectfully, Supposn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2016, 12:03 PM
 
8,390 posts, read 7,385,412 times
Reputation: 18277
The whole idea this thread is about if implemented with have other countries retaliating, and we would lose much of our 2 trillion, 300 billion dollar export market, that supplies 6,800,000 jobs in this country.

The move to $15 minimum wage rate so many are demanding, and some places putting into the law, will do one thing. It will force companies to automate, and do away with workers.

Lets take an example of how fast food hamburger restaurants are already starting to put in computer order stations with pictures if you cannot read, and the machines take orders, and the money. They are starting to install a automatic hamburger machine, that does everything from taking meat from a hopper, forming the patty, cooking it, and adding the extras, ending putting it in a box. These moves are going to put the majority of the people in that restaurant out of a job.
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