Should Mitt release his tax returns?

[SaltyDawg]

Not if the enviroment that is available is very restrictive and detrimental to business. They way to get them to open/do business in America is thru enticement not punishment.

Even if it were restrictive and detrimental to business (which it wouldn't be), people would still welcome the opportunity to make money. Even if the current business owners decide to pack up and move to China or India or wherever, this country of 300 million people will have plenty of others who welcome the new opportunity to get rich in a wide open free market.

 

[Gameface]

Even if it were restrictive and detrimental to business (which it wouldn't be), people would still welcome the opportunity to make money. Even if the current business owners decide to pack up and move to China or India or wherever, this country of 300 million people will have plenty of others who welcome the new opportunity to get rich in a wide open free market.

Are you missing the point on purpose? You are reducing the potential profits these businesses can make. I know most liberals assume every business just rakes in millions because running a successful business is so easy and pretty much a sure thing, but the reality is that many businesses have extremely small profit margins and changes to their business in the form of taxes or regulations can tilt the scales far enough that there is NO room to profit. If you can't acknowledge that possibility you're not discussing this honestly.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Are you missing the point on purpose? You are reducing the potential profits these businesses can make. I know most liberals assume every business just rakes in millions because running a successful business is so easy and pretty much a sure thing, but the reality is that many businesses have extremely small profit margins and changes to their business in the form of taxes or regulations can tilt the scales far enough that there is NO room to profit. If you can't acknowledge that possibility you're not discussing this honestly.

I am not talking about adding any taxes or extra expenses to the business. I am only talking about forcing them to hire Americans (which I understand will cost more than hiring Chinese). The taxes would only be forced onto the businesses that refuse to hire Americans and continue to hire Chinese.

And if that means the business doesn't make as much money as they do today, I don't care. The good of our nation is more important to me than the extra money in a CEO's bank account.

 

[Stoked]

Even if it were restrictive and detrimental to business (which it wouldn't be), people would still welcome the opportunity to make money. Even if the current business owners decide to pack up and move to China or India or wherever, this country of 300 million people will have plenty of others who welcome the new opportunity to get rich in a wide open free market.

You are penalyzing them for doing business in multiple countries. That limits the size they can expand to. Sounds restrictive to me.

 

[SaltyDawg]

You are penalyzing them for doing business in multiple countries. That limits the size they can expand to. Sounds restrictive to me.

They would be free to sell their goods in whatever country they wanted to. If some other country puts restrictions on them doing business there, that's on them. But yes, I would be all for restricting them to hiring Americans if they want to sell their goods in this country. Either that or pay a high tax penalty so we can feed/educate/shelter/insure (health) all the out of work Americans.

 

[Stoked]

They would be free to sell their goods in whatever country they wanted to. If some other country puts restrictions on them doing business there, that's on them. But yes, I would be all for restricting them to hiring Americans if they want to sell their goods in this country. Either that or pay a high tax penalty so we can feed/educate/shelter/insure (health) all the out of work Americans.

I am hoping that your reference to only hiring Americans was a mis-statement and did not have broader implications about your stances on work visas, permanent residents and immigration.

I can understand and even respect your views (a first) but I am glad you are not making these rules.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I am hoping that your reference to only hiring Americans was a mis-statement and did not have broader implications about your stances on work visas, permanent residents and immigration.

I can understand and even respect your views (a first) but I am glad you are not making these rules.

Yeah when I said only hiring Americans I meant only hiring people in America. If they're in Utah on a work Visa or something I have no problem with a company hiring a Chinese person.

 

[Stoked]

Yeah when I said only hiring Americans I meant only hiring people in America. If they're in Utah on a work Visa or something I have no problem with a company hiring a Chinese person.

What I want to know is why you didn't post like this when you first got here. After this discussion I will take you off ignore.

 

[Gameface]

I am not talking about adding any taxes or extra expenses to the business. I am only talking about forcing them to hire Americans (which I understand will cost more than hiring Chinese). The taxes would only be forced onto the businesses that refuse to hire Americans and continue to hire Chinese.

And if that means the business doesn't make as much money as they do today, I don't care. The good of our nation is more important to me than the extra money in a CEO's bank account.

I believe in the freedom of an individual who owns something to use his/her property as they see fit. I believe that extends to the owner of a business. If workers in China are preferable for whatever reason to workers in the U.S. then I believe that the business owner should be allowed to make the right choice for his/her business.

On another note. Hard working human beings in China have just as much of a right to work and earn a living as any other person in the world. Americans don't have a special right to prosperity and the idea that we would create laws in order to continue the deprivation of people around the world to protect our privileged existence a little longer is disgusting to me.

 

[franklin]

All tax "cuts" ain't created equal.

Obama's "cuts" look like they are special interest targeted (not to mention being paired with a huge amount of spending), while Reagan's was an across the board tax rate cut. JFK reduced tax rates too. Both times revenues skyrocketed because the economy was actually stimulated.

There's no truth to the tax-cut-economic-growth correlation. You're also misunderstanding what Reagan actually did. By crediting Reagan's "tax cuts" with economic stimulus, you're also crediting the 90% highest tax bracket with the economic successes under that system. The truth is there was never a true 90% bracket and Reagan didn't actually cut taxes.

What made the Reagan era so successful was an increase in monetary velocity on all fronts. Government taxed and spent by raising social security taxes in '81, '82, '84-'86, & '88 and raising other taxes in every year following 1981. Reagan simplified the tax code initially and implemented job training programs to assist unskilled workers into higher tech. occupations (an extension of an FDR program). With the promise of a pension no matter what, the retirement worries of the working class were soothed and we felt able to go into huge amounts of economic stimulating household debt. In other words, Reagan stimulated our animal instincts and effectively took Franklin Delano Roosevelt's platform and sold it as supply side/conservative/whatever to get the support he needed. He was a leader and made things happen but he also kicked off the debt bubble we're now trying to dig our way out of.

--Another thing to keep in mind is Reagan sat through a high inflation era & supply side is the solution to high and rising prices. Low inflation to deflation eras need demand to spur business.

--Also, Reagan trippled the national debt. If you're going to throw the debt:gdp back at me then I'll link to a study on English deficit spending bringing growth while reducing deficit:gdp (and the correlation is pretty tight).

 

[SaltyDawg]

I believe in the freedom of an individual who owns something to use his/her property as they see fit. I believe that extends to the owner of a business. If workers in China are preferable for whatever reason to workers in the U.S. then I believe that the business owner should be allowed to make the right choice for his/her business.

On another note. Hard working human beings in China have just as much of a right to work and earn a living as any other person in the world. Americans don't have a special right to prosperity and the idea that we would create laws in order to continue the deprivation of people around the world to protect our privileged existence a little longer is disgusting to me.

The business owner would still have the freedom to hire Chinese people if he wanted, he'd just have to pay extra taxes.

Yes, hardworking people in China have a right to work. They could work for Chinese companies. Or they could start their own businesses. Or they could work for American companies that are willing to pay the extra taxes to hire them.

I believe in personal freedoms as much (or even more) than the next guy. I actually believe that ALL drugs should be legal, even the hardest and most dangerous of them. My feeling is that you should be able to do anything you want as long as you're not hurting anyone else. However, this trend of outsourcing jobs just so the "job creators" can make a few extra bucks has proven to be hurting America.

 

[Stoked]

The business owner would still have the freedom to hire Chinese people if he wanted, he'd just have to pay extra taxes.

Yes, hardworking people in China have a right to work. They could work for Chinese companies. Or they could start their own businesses. Or they could work for American companies that are willing to pay the extra taxes to hire them.

I believe in personal freedoms as much (or even more) than the next guy. I actually believe that ALL drugs should be legal, even the hardest and most dangerous of them. My feeling is that you should be able to do anything you want as long as you're not hurting anyone else. However, this trend of outsourcing jobs just so the "job creators" can make a few extra bucks has proven to be hurting America.

This sounds awefully like forced isolationism on the economic front.

 

[PearlWatson]

There's no truth to the tax-cut-economic-growth correlation. You're also misunderstanding what Reagan actually did. By crediting Reagan's "tax cuts" with economic stimulus, you're also crediting the 90% highest tax bracket with the economic successes under that system. The truth is there was never a true 90% bracket and Reagan didn't actually cut taxes.

What made the Reagan era so successful was an increase in monetary velocity on all fronts. Government taxed and spent by raising social security taxes in '81, '82, '84-'86, & '88 and raising other taxes in every year following 1981. Reagan simplified the tax code initially and implemented job training programs to assist unskilled workers into higher tech. occupations (an extension of an FDR program). With the promise of a pension no matter what, the retirement worries of the working class were soothed and we felt able to go into huge amounts of economic stimulating household debt. In other words, Reagan stimulated our animal instincts and effectively took Franklin Delano Roosevelt's platform and sold it as supply side/conservative/whatever to get the support he needed. He was a leader and made things happen but he also kicked off the debt bubble we're now trying to dig our way out of.

--Another thing to keep in mind is Reagan sat through a high inflation era & supply side is the solution to high and rising prices. Low inflation to deflation eras need demand to spur business.

--Also, Reagan trippled the national debt. If you're going to throw the debt:gdp back at me then I'll link to a study on English deficit spending bringing growth while reducing deficit:gdp (and the correlation is pretty tight).

I am not sure what you say is true because I've read (numbers & perspective) otherwise but maybe you could clarify some things.

Are you saying the highest tax bracket before Reagan was at 90%? I thought that was the highest tax bracket under JFK.

Reagan didn't cut income tax rates across the board? or he increased more taxes than he cut?

I thought I read that the type of government spending that increased under Reagan was entitlement(SS) spending because of the amount of retirees increased.

Was the debt not erased under Clinton/Gingrich as the liberals love to claim, or was is just the projected surplus that never materialized or wasn't used on debt reduction?

I might have more questions later if you don't mind.

 

[PearlWatson]

This sounds awefully like forced isolationism on the economic front.

I wonder what the real effects of that would be...economically and militarily. Is it really the panacea liberals fantasize?

 

[Stoked]

I wonder what the real effects of that would be...economically and militarily. Is it really the panacea liberals fantasize?

If you force American companies to choose business in America v. business internationally I have a hard time seeing them choose America. I thinkt he end result is that most international companies (Coke, Sony, Apple, Pepsi..) pulling out of America.

Some exceptions I can see are fast food/restaurants and car makers.

This would lead to foreign governments, from less friendly ones to allies, taking reprisal actions such as heavy tarriffs, canceling treaties and allainces. This would lead to America suddenly being very alone and that hamemrs the economy, national security, military...

 

[SaltyDawg]

This sounds awefully like forced isolationism on the economic front.

I don't think it matters what anyone calls it. What matters is the end result, which would be a booming economy, low unemployment, and reduced government spending.

 

[Stoked]

I don't think it matters what anyone calls it. What matters is the end result, which would be a booming economy, low unemployment, and reduced government spending.

I think it will be just the opposite. Companies are so diverse now that you are basically forcing them into a decision of the American economy or the world economy. I see this causing 1,000 times more harm to the American economy than good.

Edit: So this is a case of the ends justify the means? That is a very dangerous stance to take...

 

[PearlWatson]

If you force American companies to choose business in America v. business internationally I have a hard time seeing them choose America. I thinkt he end result is that most international companies (Coke, Sony, Apple, Pepsi..) pulling out of America.

Some exceptions I can see are fast food/restaurants and car makers.

This would lead to foreign governments, from less friendly ones to allies, taking reprisal actions such as heavy tarriffs, canceling treaties and allainces. This would lead to America suddenly being very alone and that hamemrs the economy, national security, military...

Why do you think car makers would choose America, especially with oil imports being in jeopardy?

 

[Stoked]

Why do you think car makers would choose America, especially with oil imports being in jeopardy?

I cannot see Ford, GMC, Dodge...willing to forgo the trucks and expensive cars that americans eat up for the more economical, sensible cars in europe.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I think it will be just the opposite. Companies are so diverse now that you are basically forcing them into a decision of the American economy or the world economy. I see this causing 1,000 times more harm to the American economy than good.

Edit: So this is a case of the ends justify the means? That is a very dangerous stance to take...

If coke, for example, suddenly moved to China and stopped selling Coke in America, there would be plenty of people who open soda companies looking to take their place. This is what the free market is all about.

This notion that we have to basically beg businesses and give into their every demand in order to attract them is just nuts. I guarantee you if a multi billion dollar corporation suddenly says "We're moving to China. We'll no longer be selling our products in the USA," there would LOTS of people licking their chops at the huge opportunity to get filthy rich.