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.
They want the tax cut. They participate, if not no big tax cut.
There does not need to be government regulation/supervision.
Everyone benefits.
I made it without any help from a union. Others have made it without a union.
...
None of what you said here addresses my concern. My concern is this: If any company is able to and wants to provide apprenticeships, they probably already are. If they aren't providing apprenticeships, it's because they either can't or don't want to. You want more apprenticeships. I agree with you 100% that they're a good idea. But in your original post you say nothing about exactly how this would be accomplished. If you want to expand apprenticeships you need either a carrot, or a stick, or some combination of both, to encourage them. Simply giving a tax refund to the apprentice to buy some tools isn't going to help the company that has to hire an unskilled person - you have to give some sort of incentive to the hiring company, otherwise it may not be worth it to them (and I'm talking about the companies that currently don't). Or force them to, somehow, through regulation. You can't just say, "apprenticeships are good and we want companies to hire more" and expect it to happen. You have to give companies a reason to do so. You aren't providing a reason. Without that reason, nothing is going to happen.
Also, there will inevitably be some abuse of any system, so if you want to expand it you're going to have to create at least some regulations to do your best to insure that abuses are minimized.
None of what you said here addresses my concern. My concern is this: If any company is able to and wants to provide apprenticeships, they probably already are. If they aren't providing apprenticeships, it's because they either can't or don't want to. You want more apprenticeships. I agree with you 100% that they're a good idea. But in your original post you say nothing about exactly how this would be accomplished. If you want to expand apprenticeships you need either a carrot, or a stick, or some combination of both, to encourage them. Simply giving a tax refund to the apprentice to buy some tools isn't going to help the company that has to hire an unskilled person - you have to give some sort of incentive to the hiring company, otherwise it may not be worth it to them (and I'm talking about the companies that currently don't). Or force them to, somehow, through regulation. You can't just say, "apprenticeships are good and we want companies to hire more" and expect it to happen. You have to give companies a reason to do so. You aren't providing a reason. Without that reason, nothing is going to happen.
Also, there will inevitably be some abuse of any system, so if you want to expand it you're going to have to create at least some regulations to do your best to insure that abuses are minimized.
The carrot is the tax break to corporations that take on the apprentice.
I thought I made that very clear...
There is no force. You either want the tax relief I offer with the laid out rules. Or you dont. I'm not forcing that onto anyone.
I give the incentive with 0-5% corporate tax.
Or continue to have what's in place.
There's no forcing.
I'm asking would you support it with the outline I provided and had to explain thus far.
I wouldn't support it because of the healthcare part alone. That may sound good on paper but could never be enforced. People would still be dropped, denied, and flat out refused coverage for whatever reason. The insurance companies have entire departments staffed by people who are paid specifically to think up reasons to deny and clever ways to get out of it. There is nothing here that would fix that.
The only real option is a universal healthcare system where everyone is covered regardless of health status similar to the ones in Europe and Canada. If you put that in there then I'd consider it. Otherwise no ****ing way would I support this.
What about those who do not want that?
I need some explanation as to how the Europe and Canada model is a good idea.
I see socialized debt like ACA again. Spreading health care costs across the board and raising the costs again.
Have to say more than say because everyone is covered...
Many states already provide tax incentives for hiring apprenticeships. At the federal level, companies already can get a tax credit for some training expenses (which include apprenticeships). If you really want to expand it you're going to have to do a lot more. The change-of-culture thing I mentioned in post #29 is probably the only thing that will really accomplish what you want to accomplish, but achieving that would be a huge and long-term task, probably requiring a lot of heavy-handed government involvement, at least at the outset.
And BTW, pretty much NO company is going to meet all of these requirements, they are simply too unrealistic. So nobody is even going to bother trying to meet them, including the apprenticeship aspect of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
0-5% Federal corporate tax rate.
To qualify for this a corporation must
1. Prove 100% employment of American Citizens.
2. Provide a plan of expansion (much like when you or I walk in for a small business loan)
3. Must Prove at the least 60% of employees in Non Management roles clearing 55-65k per year.
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.
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.
I need some explanation as to how the Europe and Canada model is a good idea.
I see socialized debt like ACA again. Spreading health care costs across the board and raising the costs again.
Have to say more than say because everyone is covered...
Some do not want the US to be involved in useless wars yet we are. There are a lot of things that the country does that some do not want but that's another thread entirely.
There are numerous ways to fund a universal healthcare system here. Some say a VAT tax, some say drop the age restriction in Medicare and raise the cap just to name a couple. The point is there are ways but most involve raising taxes. That might sound bad at first until you think about how much we're already paying the insurance industry for spotty coverage at best. It would be better to have a system that everyone pays into and everyone uses. Legal citizens only of course. We just have to figure out a way to accomplish it that is palatable to the highest percentage of people in the country.
Sounds good in theory but these companies can't/won't pay their employees a decent wage and still make a profit. Like someone else said no one is going to buy a $30.00 T-shirt and that's what they are going to have to charge to make a profit. Overseas they pay $5.00 a day and the cost of that $30 T shirt comes WAY down not to mention, I bet you wouldn't be able to touch whatever tax breaks they are getting.
Nine Line apparel 26 for a T shirt.
Grunt Style 26 for a T shirt.
Two companies that source American made T shirts and screen print them here.
Found a couple more retailers that sell shirts for 19.95... I don't think 30 dollar T shirts would be the norm...
I wear alot of Ralph Lauren and the tags say Made in Sri Lanka Made in Vietnam... those are 70/80 dollar polos. Unless you go to the outlet to get them for 25/35 when on sale.
How would the T shirt theory be legit? Most stuff I've seen with hefty price tags aren't made here...
Then there's American Eagle outfitters... The shirts from there when on sale go for 19.99 made in Haiti.
Somewhere I have some old Hollister and Abercrombie shirts and jeans stored away I had when I was in highschool I'm pretty sure they were Bangladesh and Vietnam sourced too.
Have quite a bit of Tommy Hilfiger stuff too. Calvin Klein underoos 12 bucks per pair of boxers. Made in China. Body fit shirts 50/60 bucks a piece Made in Indonesia...
Not looking good for big brand companies...
Only brands I recall in middle and high school that were made in America LOL Jnco, Shutters, and Lee pipes. Back in those days 50 bucks for a pair of jeans that you could fit your whole body in the pant leg and had pockets deep enough to hide a 6 pack.
I would tax capital gains and dividends equal to income tax rates... no two tiered tax systems...
I wouldn't tax all like that, but IMO short term ones (capital gains where equity held < 2 years) should be taxed like a 401K withdrawal would be, standard tax rate as you state plus 10% of the gain as a penalty for early withdrawal. I also favor a 25% transaction value tax on all trading, where it is resold inside one month.
Encourage long-term trading. Discourage day trading. No exceptions.
Nine Line apparel 26 for a T shirt.
Grunt Style 26 for a T shirt.
Two companies that source American made T shirts and screen print them here.
Found a couple more retailers that sell shirts for 19.95... I don't think 30 dollar T shirts would be the norm...
Probably those T-shirt companies produce in smaller volumes, which makes it easier to hire more expensive American workers. The Gaps and Abercrombies of the world which sell millions of pieces of apparel every year in the US need a vastly bigger scale, which is realistically only doable in 3rd World nations. Otherwise you're not going to find enough workers in the US to man an operation the size that a Gap or Abercrombie needs ... unless you're willing to import hoards of 3rd World workers, which obviously you're not willing to do.
Well-meaning American Apparel learned this the hard way.
Textiles (that is, raw cloth) is still very do-able in the US, because it's very capital intensive and no so labor intensive. Apparel is the opposite and you're simply not going to get all that much of it in the US anymore. Completely unrealistic.
There's a reason the OP is on my ignore list. Too many right-wing rants, and anyone who opens a thread with "liberals" in the title isn't interested in an honest, factual conversation anyway.
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.
