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.
Too much thinking in this post. Why is it we complicate things? Bottom line is not disallowing free trade. Just don't make it more profitable to move the jobs to overseas markets. Don't give tax breaks and in fact if you are an American owned company and you produce in another country than you need to pay the import fees and pay the FICA tax on the employees you have in your overseas factory.
Philip T, since our nation began, the U.S. Customs Service has been assessing the values of goods and collecting tariffs. They are now the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection which is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security . They would be the logical agency to assess the values of goods. They are now responsible for our nation’s border security.
Any exporter of goods (manufactured or essentially rebuilt within the prior two years) and willing to pay the fees that defray all net direct federal expenses due to this trade policy, is entitled to have their goods assessed. Upon their goods leaving the USA, Transferable Import Certificates, (ICs) with face values equal to the assessed values of their goods leaving the USA will be issued to the exporters.
The assessments are reasonable approximations. It’s important that the assessments of differing goods be reasonably in correct proportion to each other and all import or export goods be assessed in a similar manner.
The assessment fees themselves are only of nominal importance. It’s the open competitive market price of the transferable ICs that serve as indirect but effective subsidy of U.S. exported goods.
Every exporter of U.S. goods will have vested interests to oppose their competitors being granted more favorable assessments.
All importers of foreign goods have vested interests to oppose their goods being excessively assessed.
Remember that imports and exports must be assessed in a similar manner.
I suppose that there’s always been a legal structure of hearings to adjudicate disputes regarding U.S. Customs decisions.
Homeland Security should be aware of everything and everyone entering U.S. ports. Within this proposal They'll have additional eyes assessing all imported goods, additional revenue that’s eventually provided by U.S. purchasers of foreign goods to cover the expenses of those additional eyers and U.S. manufacturers lobbying that goods entering the USA be fully assessed and the Import certificate be properly collected and cancelled. All of this activity increases the difficulty of smuggling contraband into to USA and thus actually increases our Homeland border security.
Respectfully, Supposn
I wouldn't trust them, and homeland security is virtually useless in this country.
I think most people would agree with that.
flat tariffs are a better solution. We need only to learn from history:
With the abolition of tariffs, and with US guarantees that goods made in foreign countries would enter American free of charge, manufacturers began to shut plants here and more production abroad to countries where US wage-and-hour laws and health & environmental regulations did not apply, countries where there were no unions and workers' wages were below the US minimum wage. Competitors who stayed in America were undercut and run out of business, or forced to join the stampede abroad.
we have too much regulation here not to have tariffs on goods.
Too much thinking in this post. Why is it we complicate things? Bottom line is not disallowing free trade. Just don't make it more profitable to move the jobs to overseas markets. Don't give tax breaks and in fact if you are an American owned company and you produce in another country than you need to pay the import fees and pay the FICA tax on the employees you have in your overseas factory.
Golfing duo, there’s incomplete thoughts in your post.
This proposal does not prevent global trade. It doesn’t permit USA assessed value of imported products to exceed the value of our exports.
Because the import certificates function as an indirect but effective subsidy of USA exports, it reduces the prices to foreign purchasers at no additional cost to producers or exporters of USA goods. All of the proposal’s net costs are eventually paid by USA purchasers of foreign goods.
Wage earning families benefit from cheaper foreign goods but they suffer an aggregate net loss due our trade deficit’s affects upon our GDP and median wage. We could still enjoy cheaper foreign goods but we cannot afford pure free trade’s absolutely cheapest possibly priced foreign goods.
This proposal’s not absolutely pure free trade but it is absolutely pure free enterprise.
This proposal is at advantage to any USA enterprise that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods within or beyond our borders. It grants the federal government no net revenue and no policy discretion. The assessment of goods values within the USA expressed in U.S. dollars is a technical rather than a policy determination.
I agree that our tax laws should not reward moving production or jobs beyond our borders. Toyota N.A. is a USA corporation and to the extent that their products, components, materials are produced in the USA and they pay USA taxes, their products are no less domestic than that of Ford or G.M.
Similarly the subsidiaries of USA corporations are incorprsted within foreign nations; they are foreign corporations. They are subject ONLY to the taxes and laws of the nations within they operate. Changing our laws that affect USA corporations do not affect foreign corporations' operations beyond our borders.
Let me fill in the gaps for you. I don't care about the assessed value of imported products. My issue is with allowing manufacturing jobs to disappear overseas. Assembly is not manufacturing. We still make the best steel. So at least we have that still going so allowing Chinese brake disks are going to be cheaper but our manufacturers can hold their own on here as long as we don't allow more to leave. In fact let's make it more attractive to bring back manufacturing. Let's give breaks to companies that set up shop here instead of Vietnam. I know Texas is a very attractive state with no corporate income tax so companies like Samsung and others have made new homes there.
So I will not get into the weeds of assessing value. Free trade is here. Let's make it less free by getting those companies that left to come back instead.
Outside of that don't expect me to get in on the rest of that stuff. Just too much thought put into finess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Golfing duo, there’s incomplete thoughts in your post.
This proposal does not prevent global trade. It doesn’t permit USA assessed value of imported products to exceed the value of our exports.
Because the import certificates function as an indirect but effective subsidy of USA exports, it reduces the prices to foreign purchasers at no additional cost to producers or exporters of USA goods. All of the proposal’s net costs are eventually paid by USA purchasers of foreign goods.
Wage earning families benefit from cheaper foreign goods but they suffer an aggregate net loss due our trade deficit’s affects upon our GDP and median wage. We could still enjoy cheaper foreign goods but we cannot afford pure free trade’s absolutely cheapest possibly priced foreign goods.
This proposal’s not absolutely pure free trade but it is absolutely pure free enterprise.
This proposal is at advantage to any USA enterprise that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods within or beyond our borders. It grants the federal government no net revenue and no policy discretion. The assessment of goods values within the USA expressed in U.S. dollars is a technical rather than a policy determination.
I agree that our tax laws should not reward moving production or jobs beyond our borders. Toyota N.A. is a USA corporation and to the extent that their products, components, materials are produced in the USA and they pay USA taxes, their products are no less domestic than that of Ford or G.M.
Similarly the subsidiaries of USA corporations are incorprsted within foreign nations; they are foreign corporations. They are subject ONLY to the taxes and laws of the nations within they operate. Changing our laws that affect USA corporations do not affect foreign corporations' operations beyond our borders.
First you need competetive goods as geramny showed when it reform in the 90's compared to other european who did not. Then you have to do what a Chinese peasant can't or your labor cost wil doom you in modern western scoieties. The one thing I see like mnay is the advatage we will see in beomign energy dependent and even exporting refined product itself. WJust the cost of out natural gas coapred to importig countries would be huge. appox 3.00 per unit for what asinas pay 13 for.But they too will intime start adopting the same new innovastio in extrction. that is ften the case when we block ourselfs by pure political special interest.he ebst way to raise wages is by demand for lbor that is sj kiled as no matter tha amount the bottom will be the bottom.Its have less at the bottom by beig i more skilled opostions. that si pretty mcuh what has aheepned inUS;some hae gain thru skills and other have lagged to still doing what a chinese peasant can do.
Let me fill in the gaps for you. I don't care about the assessed value of imported products. My issue is with allowing manufacturing jobs to disappear overseas. Assembly is not manufacturing. We still make the best steel. So at least we have that still going so allowing Chinese brake disks are going to be cheaper but our manufacturers can hold their own on here as long as we don't allow more to leave. In fact let's make it more attractive to bring back manufacturing. Let's give breaks to companies that set up shop here instead of Vietnam. I know Texas is a very attractive state with no corporate income tax so companies like Samsung and others have made new homes there.
So I will not get into the weeds of assessing value. Free trade is here. Let's make it less free by getting those companies that left to come back instead.
Outside of that don't expect me to get in on the rest of that stuff. Just too much thought put into finess.
Golfing Duo, other than petroleum oil and products, manufacturing is the major, but not the only other contributor to USA’s trade deficit of goods.
(The Import Certificate that I’m a proponent of excludes the values of scarce or precious minerals integral to goods being assessed)
Producers usually require services and products from other enterprises. A nation’s producing enterprises generally acquire most of their production support from within their own nation.
Due to our trade deficit of goods, our nation’s reduction of enterprises’ production and jobs far exceeds that of the production facilities that we’ve lost to foreign competitors.
You’re indifferent to our trade deficit of goods but you’re concerned about our loss of jobs to overseas competitors? That’s analogous to stating you’re unconcerned about your communities fire department but you’re concerned regarding your losses if a fire should occur.
But you do want the federal government to subsidize manufacturing with tax subsidies paid entirely by all USA taxpayers. I’m a proponent of an indirect but effective subsidy of almost all USA goods, the very significant reduction of our trade deficit and the proposal’s net cost will be entirely paid for by USA purchasers of foreign goods.
You’re a manufacturer and you want a level playing field for USA manufactures. I want a level playing field for producers of any type of USA goods. Although I believe this proposal will be of greater benefit to our manufacturing industries, it would enable the U.S. Department of Agriculture to reduce their subsidies of exporting our price supported crops, because the exporter profits from acquiring valuable Import Certificates. It would enable USA sheep meat producers to better compete with New Zealand producers. The market, not the government will determine USA’s global trade but our imports are limited to the assessed value of our exports.
... flat tariffs are a better solution. We need only to learn from history. ...
Florida Sandy, unlike tariffs, Import Certificates behave as an indirect but effective subsidy of exports. While tariffs reduce the nation’s global trade, Import Certificates would increase the aggregate total of our imports plus exports. but the assessed values of our imports cannot exceed our exports.
Unlike tariffs, regardless of how low the global open market price of ICs should fall, the assessed values of our imports cannot exceed our exports.
Tariffs cannot do this unless the tariff rate is set so high as to practically eliminate almost all importing.
We can enjoy cheaper foreign goods but we cannot continue to afford the absolute cheapest prices of pure unrestricted free global trade.
For tariffs or Import Certificates, all net expenses should be paid by USA purchasers of foreign goods.
There would still be a rise in prices of imported goods due to supply constraints. Those buying tbills would also buy less and they have less business abroad. Also due to Nafta, this could be circumvented by having imports set up pseudo manufacturing facilities in SEZ over in mexico. SEZ - special economic zones. In the end, it'a a good pipe dream, but I don't think the deficit will ever be reduced by anything significant. No disrespect intended.
U C Brian, we are not discussing the federal budget deficit; we’re discussing USA’s global trade deficit of goods.
This is a unilateral trade policy. Our membership to the WTO and NAFTA are predicated upon our right to grant those organizations six months notice of our intention to resign our memberships. They can accept our resignation or our Import Certificate policy.
We should not undermine the finances of wage earning families. Our trade deficit is detrimental to our GDP and median wage. Regardless of what our GDP is in any given year, it would have been greater if our trade deficit was less. The WTO for decades couldn’t prevent to importing and exporting of land mines. Do you believe no one will sell us TVs and computers? Don’t you believe (if that should be the case), we shouldn’t manufacture them in the USA?
Please explain your circumventing scheme; I don’t see your point. Exporters of any goods departing the USA are entitled to request their goods be assessed providing they are willing to pay the federal fees dependent upon the assessed values of their goods. The assessed values of the USA exports are printed on the Import Certificates.
Importers of goods must surrender Certificates covering the assessed values of their goods entering the USA. Surrendered certificates are cancelled. If the special economic zone is not within the borders of the USA, there’s no exception. Goods shipped from anywhere beyond our borders into the USA will be required to surrender ICs covering their assessed values.
But think of it this way, if we take the whole worlds trade deficit, it will always equal zero. What one person loses in imports, another gains in exports. All nations should strive for a trade deficit of zero.
As far as median wage and the trade deficit, it will always be that way with wealthy countries. I think it's foolish to try to tamper with the exporting of jobs though. If a man on a computer in china can do the same work as a man on a computer here and get payed six times less, why should the american have that job? Because he's american?
The bottom line is that free trade creates the most wealth. And if we americans really desire free trade around the globe, then we must be free traders our selves. If we are not, then other countries won't be either, which means less wealth for all of us.
Phil P, call me a chauvinist. I’m more concerned with USA wage earning families and less concerned with the population of China. All nations should strive to improve their citizen’s quality of life.
The interests of enterprises and the remainder of our society generally coincide. When they diverge I side with the remainder of society. If legislators determine a commercial practice is generally detrimental to the public, they deem it illegal.
Anti-trust laws make enforcement of manufacturers’ suggested retail prices illegal. Building codes prevent fire traps from being constructed. Zoning laws prevent the new buyer of your neighbor’s land from raising hogs.
Trade deficits are not pure free trade but the Import Certificate proposal’s absolutely pure free enterprise.
Trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediate detriment to their nation’s GDPs.
The annual GDP of a nation with an annual trade deficit is less than otherwise due to that deficit; (otherwise being no trade deficit). Unless there’s a prior existing s shortage of USA labor, the increased gross domestic production, (GDP) per capita will to some extent be reflected by an increased median wage.
The purchasing power of the median wage is an excellent indication of a robust middle income earning segment of the nation’s population. I don’t believe a nation ever enjoyed a high purchasing powered median wage and did not also enjoy greater stock prices and enterprises’ profits. Such economies are much more sustainable.
On the other hand if higher enterprises’ sock prices and profits are not reflected by similar higher median wages, the economy is not sustainable. That’s why I’m a populist.
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.
