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.
That's the thing with climate change. It's all theory.
It becomes science when they put their theory to the test instead of vote to increase regulation and taxing something supposedly that can't be changed, like I said. NASA has a HUGE vacuum chamber. They could replicate conditions on a small scale there to test their theory and be justified in "carbon credits" "carbon footprint tax" by developing implements to clean the atmosphere rather than continue incessantly whining about it.
I repeat: Your proposed experiment contains no judge. If it contains no judge they can claim the test proved their theory no matter what. Most scientific experiments involve a lot of nuance that only people with a lot of knowledge in the subject matter can understand. That being the case, they can do the experiment and set it up so that it proves their theory. And then say to you, "So THERE!" All it would do is create a lot of pointless public debate and resolve nothing.
Agreed with Le Roi by and large. Keep things simple, don't unnecessary complicate the tax code even more. Most of your ideas have giant loopholes that allow savvy corporations to exploit. Even if they don't meet your criteria in reality, they can easily fudge the numbers (for example, move all foreign hires as contractor and viola! They now have 100% American hires).
But in a nutshell, how can any taxpayer not like the idea of lowering taxes??? No capital gain tax?? Love it! Lower income tax rate!! Hell yeah!!!
However, there is the other side of the coin - how do you cover the large federal deficit that will result from this plan?
.
No loophole. It said 100% citizens. That would cover direct hire or sub contracted. An American Corporation wants to conduct business here, they have to hire here. No sub contracting or production overseas to skirt an import tax. Ford does it. They build diesel engines in chihuahua Mexico send them to Texas to have the water pump installed. Final assembly occurs in America. They skirt the import tax. My goal is to end it or make them pay.
The deficit? With people keeping more of what they earn by not having a monstrous government to fund would quickly chip away at the deficit with more people keeping more of what they earn to spend. We're a nation of consumers and investors.
Yes it does. You're under the impression it would take more bureaucracy to make it happen. It wouldnt.
OK let's go back to your comment :
Quote:
3. Must Prove at the least 60% of employees in Non Management roles clearing 55-65k per year.
so now the IRS must have guidelines about what constitutes a "Non Management role."
The IRS cannot simply rely on the taxpayer to dictate what a management/non management role is, because that's subject to abuse and fraud. So now the IRS has to collect data on ALL employees duties, how they use their time, how much they're paid -- and figure out some kind of objective, data-driven method of determining whether or not they're management, and calculate that for EVERY FIRM IN AMERICA. Obviously, relying on the company to tell the truth would be absurd.
Quote:
4. Must have on the job training. Deductions for paying for employee training/certification/license fees if covered. The incentive will be to circumvent spending YOUR money on college. Kind of like how a hospital will take on a CNA and pay for their ongoing education earn and learn program. With proof of a fair wage.
Doesn't have to be for skilled trades. Could be a software programmer/code writer to customer service agent/representative/hotline/helpline. Whatever. No longer have to completely rely on a mandatory college degree to be able to make it. Goal isn't to kill college. Goal is to get more folks opportunity.
Now the IRS has to come up with a factual, data-driven methodology for what constitutes "on the job training." It will need to calculate (for each employee) whether they've been given "on the job training." Otherwise this will also be subject to abuse and fraud.
Quote:
5. Must have On shore In the country Production. No more sweat shops. No more running to foreign lands to produce goods to have final assembly occur here in the states. Total start to finish. Not 98% done in country x and the final assembly occur here. I mean total complete start to finish Made In America.
Now the IRS has to set up a bureaucracy to determine what % of a company's inputs are domestic, and what % are foreign. It will need to set up a special investigative branch to ensure that companies are not engaging in fraud by misrepresenting the origin of its contents.
It also has to create a set of rules to determine what constitutes a good vs. what constitutes a service, since you don't have any restrictions on foreign services, only foreign goods. That'll be another big loophole.
So tell me again how these ideas don't expand the bureaucracy. Tell me again how they magically work, since companies always tell the truth, and nobody *ever* lies about their taxes.
The deficit? With people keeping more of what they earn by not having a monstrous government to fund would quickly chip away at the deficit with more people keeping more of what they earn to spend.
Oh, right, we're going to reduce the annual deficit by collecting less federal revenue.
so now the IRS must have guidelines about what constitutes a "Non Management role."
The IRS cannot simply rely on the taxpayer to dictate what a management/non management role is, because that's subject to abuse and fraud. So now the IRS has to collect data on ALL employees duties, how they use their time, how much they're paid -- and figure out some kind of objective, data-driven method of determining whether or not they're management, and calculate that for EVERY FIRM IN AMERICA. Obviously, relying on the company to tell the truth would be absurd.
There would be a code for laborer, trainee and code for manager supplied on forms.
You're making it seem harder than need be. The military does this with rank and corresponding pay grade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
Now the IRS has to come up with a factual, data-driven methodology for what constitutes "on the job training." It will need to calculate (for each employee) whether they've been given "on the job training." Otherwise this will also be subject to abuse and fraud.
The wages paid and codes would be blatantly obvious.
See how the military does it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
Now the IRS has to set up a bureaucracy to determine what % of a company's inputs are domestic, and what % are foreign. It will need to set up a special investigative branch to ensure that companies are not engaging in fraud by misrepresenting the origin of its contents.
Raw materials would vary. I wouldn't be bothered with raw materials.
What I would be focused on is the same way the ATF focuses on 922R compliancy.
What finished components were produced here and overseas?
Can't import a legitimate Russian built Molot or Kalashnikov due to sanctions.
The model would follow the same with other goods. It's simply adopting what methods are currently used elsewhere and applied everywhere else.
Would be really hard to doctor something up with correspondence from customs when shipping containers arrive to port with completed built in (insert foreign country here) engines for example for Ford GM etc. Goal is to get production back here. Or even finished components. The whole assembled in America from globally sourced components. Yeah. Not anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
It also has to create a set of rules to determine what constitutes a good vs. what constitutes a service, since you don't have any restrictions on foreign services, only foreign goods. That'll be another big loophole.
No more calling Microsoft and speaking to someone in India. Call center/customer support would be domestic.
Guess you missed that part in the OP. Like I said if confused ask... I'll elaborate on specifics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
So tell me again how these ideas don't expand the bureaucracy. Tell me again how they magically work, since companies always tell the truth, and nobody *ever* lies about their taxes.
Like I said. Can't really lie with shipping containers with products on board at Port or freight yards sitting there coming from overseas with customs inspecting, right?
There would be a code for laborer, trainee and code for manager supplied on forms.
What about firms that have no laborers, trainees, or managers?
What about firms that do not use that dichotomy, that lack defined "classes" of employees?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
The wages paid and codes would be blatantly obvious.
Oh, so you're going to have the IRS devise a set of CODES that correspond to every single type of training that exists in the global economy?
What about new types of training that aren't accounted for? What about something that the employer considers "training" but is in reality just plain old work? What if the employee and the employer have differing opinions on whether something constitutes "training", are we just going to default on the side of the employer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
Raw materials would vary. I wouldn't be bothered with raw materials.
Oh, okay, so now we have an entirely new bureaucratic system to determine what constitutes a "raw material" vs. what constitutes a "non-raw" material? And presumably we'll need to train inspectors on every form of material known to man, and be able to tell on-the-fly whether that material was raw or non-raw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
Would be really hard to doctor something up with correspondence from customs when shipping containers arrive to port with completed built in (insert foreign country here) engines for example for Ford GM etc.
Unless they don't arrive in shipping containers at all. They might arrive in airplanes, they might be carried across the border in trucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
What finished components were produced here and overseas?
No, not just finished components, you said all inputs. (Except raw materials, which you evidently changed your mind about.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
No more calling Microsoft and speaking to someone in India. Call center/customer support would be domestic.
Guess you missed that part in the OP.
Oh, so you're going to have the government force Microsoft to close foreign offices? That'll go well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
Like I said. Can't really lie with shipping containers with products on board at Port or freight yards sitting there coming from overseas with customs inspecting, right?
Oh, okay, so we're going to hire an entire army of port employees to inspect all cargo now? And *somehow* they will make a determination over what the goods inside are, how much they're valued at, what country they originated from, and what % of its value was added overseas. That sounds super efficient.
There is alot of fake outrage over Trump Tax Plan.
Without being condescending and without being insulting or Rude would you support this?
Forget all that mess.
Do the right thing and repeal the 16th Amendment. Quit trying to put a band-aid on the symptoms and making everyone suffer the wrath of the Plantation Masters.
Cure the disease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NY_refugee's training system seems to want to emulate Germany's apprentice system. I think most people agree it's a good system, but it's likely hard to replicate elsewhere. Part of it is embedded in the German culture. If you want to achieve something like that you'll have to change the culture, not just the laws. That is a much bigger task.
But the German system is not a realistic model for the U.S. It relies on a very stratified education system along with regulated and heavily unionized labor markets.
Oh, so you're going to have the IRS devise a set of CODES that correspond to every single type of training that exists in the global economy?
Nope. General training. Training to be a mechanic? Training to be a plumber etc. Simple code system. You're making it really more complicated than need be.
Say
01. Trainee/Aprentice.
02. Laborer.
03. Manager.
04. Executive officer.
Would really be hard to put 01. Trainee/Apprentice with a W2 W4 filled out with 100k to 1million in income on it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
Oh, okay, so now we have an entirely new bureaucratic system to determine what constitutes a "raw material" vs. what constitutes a "non-raw" material?
Sighs. Again you're making far more complicated than need be. An exhaust manifold made in lichtenstein for a ford V8 is a finished product. A tire made in Korea is a finished product. An electric motor made in Taiwan is a finished product.
Raw material Iron ore. Etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
Unless they don't arrive in shipping containers at all. They might arrive in airplanes, they might be carried across the border in trucks.
Which customs intercepts... you must not get out often...
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
No, not just finished components, you said all inputs. (Except raw materials, which you evidently changed your mind about.)
No you're confusing finished products with raw materials.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
Oh, so you're going to have the government force Microsoft to close foreign offices? That'll go well.
I didn't say they'd be forced to do that. They could if they wanted. They'd be taxed at a higher rate that's all.
I won't point fingers to score political points, but someone had no qualms with chasing production out of this country... so what would be the problem with taxing corporations at a higher rate as a punishment for depleting job opportunities in this country...
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.
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.
