Posted on 06/10/2004 8:03:39 PM PDT by neutrino
112 - "I asked WHY did they do it,"
DUH !!!
see:
101 - "The Articles for Confederation, implemented immediately after our freedom from Britain, were just such a construction of government, and they didn't work, and they were abandoned shortly afterwards, because they didn't work. And our founding fathers created the Constitution, which has held us in good stead for over 200 years, so we are the 'United' States, rather than 50 separate states. To my mind, Even California is a lot more important to me, an American, than is China, LOL"
113 - "Thinking that politicians in Washington D.C. know which industries to 'nurture' is communism. So, why do you think Congress knows what industries to 'nurture' with our tax dollars?"
I have repeatedly said that we should have tariffs based on the cost of living in other countries versus our cost of living.
Our current congress critters don't have the brains to find the door.
114 - "Incidentally, banks in countries that have the advantage of "liberal" secrecy laws take advantage of just that . . . not reneging on letters-of-credit as you suggest."
You are not capable of learning much about letters of credit. You have just demonstrated that.
The last LC I arranged was for a shipload (20,000 tons) of corn, before that a shipload of paper, and I initiated, but did not complete one for 13 shiploads of frozen chicken. These are but a few.
So was the LoC feom a Indonesian, Nigerian, or Russian bank? [chuckle]
But the cost will still drop. Among other things, the costs incurred by finding and utilizing tax-preference and tax-avoidance strategies will go to zero. Machinery will be written off at once, or on a real-world basis, not an IRS table. And the cost of collecting the tax will go down.
Further, a 21% consumption tax will also pin the tail on the donkey, possibly causing the donkey (consumer) to put even more pressure on our Congresscritters to reduce the cost of Gummint. There will be no more "shell games" played by "taxing big corporations."
Truth-in-advertising generally reduces costs.
ANd you will NEVER get a straight answer. Accenture will have a good part of the work performed overseas--but which parts? How many people?
For that matter, how many H1B's will they import to the USA to do the work? Or L-1's?
Good luck tracking it.
You could be their spokesman--very well worded.
How many of those 'employees' are US CITIZENS as opposed to H1-B's or L-1's?
You could ask Accenture, I suppose . . . but I'll wager that there are not enough to make the point I think you're trying to make.
I bet you can spot your own mistake there.
DUH !!! see: 101 - "The Articles for Confederation, implemented immediately after our freedom from Britain, were just such a construction of government, and they didn't work, and they were abandoned shortly afterwards, because they didn't work.
I don't mean to further illustrate your ignorance, but the Articles of Confederation created free trade between the States.
"the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them."
States could have sales taxes (as now), but they couldn't charge tariffs to one another. The Articles of Confederation created a free trade zone out of America.
They were replaced by the current Constitution because the federal government had no power of it's own to tax ("The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled."), and thereby repay bonds incurred during the revolutionary war. The replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Consitution has nothing to do with WHY the Founders insisted on free trade between the States, as both governments insisted on this measure. So, try again...
As it is so well illustrated on this thread.
you are seriously stupid: 107 - "1. Because that is the way our forefathers designed our country, with no internal trade barriers. They are strictly prohibited. "
I'm asking you WHY, you're just saying "that's the way they did it." That isn't an answer to WHY. WHY would they create a free trade zone with within America? Both the Articles of Confederation and Constitution prevent the institution of trade barriers between the States. Why? Saying, "because they did" isn't answer to why they did it.
Not a 'globalist agenda', but a profit agenda to stay in business. As consequence if they can pay off politicians to erect trade barriers and protect their profits at the expense of American living standards, they will. See: Steel Tariffs for a recent example.
Are you also saying that these corporations compromise our politicians to act in the interests of the corporations "at the expense of American living standards"?
When they erect lumber tariffs preventing Americans from accessing cheaper Canadian lumber to build their homes, or steel tariffs that compel Americans to pay more than they otherwise would have to for cars, etc. Yes, everytime you see someone put up a tariff to protect their business, they're doing so entirely at the expense of every other person in America.
They're acting against American interests when they pocket money from the steel or lumber industry in exchange for trade barriers that drive up costs for Americans. They're further acting against American interests when they demand tax proceeds for the sale of American made goods and services overseas, that drive up the cost of those goods and services and make them less competitive than they would be minus the Congressional greed.
The politicians follow the money - right? And they vote for whichever side pays them more - also right?
They've been voting for globalism. Now who do you suppose is paying them to do that? You? Me? Or a company that wants to send jobs offshore?
Protecting American industry is good - for America, and all her people.
XBob, if a corporation makes profits in the U.S. it already has to pay taxes on them. That's the law. That law applies whether they are incorporated in the U.S., China, or Bermuda. The reason Accenture reincorporated in Bermuda is because our Congress insists on being able to tax any American company for the profits they make on exports above and beyond local taxes overseas where those exports end up. Congress has created an additional cost for companies like Boeing when it competes against Airbus for the Chinese airline industry. Congress, by driving up the costs to our exporters, is giving them an incentive to leave our country at best, and costing them business and thereby revenue to maintain American employment, at worst.
Does this mean you're in favor of repealing the tax laws that compel companies who want to export goods and services to leave America? Because THAT'S the issue of the article. Congress has created incentives for American companies who want to sell abroad to not be American companies anymore.
Thank you! The ignorance demonstrated in posts by the isolationists on this board is just astounding.
How unAmerican and evil. Free Traitors! LOL
We certainly need to do that. Presently, the tax code penalizes those who stay here and rewards those who go offshore. Instead, we need to reward those who stay here and penalize those who outsource.
We also need to add tariffs, trade controls, and non-tariff trade controls.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.