Posted on 01/24/2017 1:55:54 PM PST by Kaslin
Both President Trump and Speaker of the House Ryan want to increase U.S. jobs by increasing the number of Americans in the manufacturing work force and both believe that changes to corporate taxes are part of the formula to accomplish that goal. Both are correct, but their goals should also include returning middle class computer processing jobs and call centers that have also moved offshore. Outsourcing does not begin and end with manufacturing.
The accounting department of a major U.S. corporation should not be outsourced to another country. Engineering, medical reviews, accounting, legal research and millions of other jobs should not be exported to other countries. The same with call centers. We should be using the Internal Revenue Code to help U.S. companies operate within the United States.
President Trump appears to want to accomplish bringing jobs back to the U.S. by jaw-boning manufacturers that sell in the United States to build their products in the United States, lowering tax rates and imposing tariffs where manufacturing is done offshore. Congressman Ryan appears to want to accomplish the same results by essentially building tariffs into the Internal Revenue Code and indirectly achieving what appears to be a tax on all imports.
Yes, we need to do more to attract manufacturing jobs back into the United States. We also need to attract the non-manufacturing jobs that have been outsourced during the past two decades. Cheap communications have led to the export of millions of both high paying and moderately paying non-manufacturing jobs. Tax reform needs to address both manufacturing and non-manufacturing jobs. The Internal Revenue Code should promote moving manufacturing jobs and processing jobs back to the United States and away from India, Vietnam and the Philippines.
The axiom in war strategy is to be certain that one is preparing to fight the next war rather than preparing to fight the last war. While the goals of President Trump and Congressman Ryan are laudable, precise and immediately necessary, one could hope that they think bigger and longer term. There is an easy fix to the current issue of manufacturing by making an easily drafted couple of changes to the existing Internal Revenue Code. These changes should also include incentives for U.S. companies to move processing jobs back to the United States. There are as many computer related functional jobs that have moved offshore as there are manufacturing jobs. Let us protect as many American workers as possible.
Section 199 of the Internal Revenue Code today reduces the top U.S. corporate tax rate from 35% to a touch less than 32%. Section 199 was passed in 2004 with more than forty Democratic Congressmen and women people voting in favor and passed by voice vote in the U.S. Senate. It should be no different in 2017. To move manufacturing jobs back into the United States, all Congress needs to do is significantly increase the percentage reduction in the tax rate. To move processing jobs back to the United States, all Congress has to do is offer a similar reduction in tax rates for non-manufacturing jobs. This is an easy fix and it should be one hundred percent non-partisan. It is America first without throwing a hatchet at other nations.
I concur with President Trump that the Ryan tax plan is too complicated. I would argue that a tax plan that so dramatically and visibly changes our approach to tariffs as the Ryan plan is one that would need intellectual and practical discussions in several Senate committees including Foreign Relations, Commerce and Agriculture as such changes would be wildly unacceptable to ally and foe alike. I bid for any Trump proposed tariffs. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
Increasing the rate reductions in Section 199 of the existing Internal Revenue Code and expanding the language to cover non-manufacturing jobs that are being performed overseas would be a great way to approach the issue. Everyone should be happy.
There must be an application fee, sponsorship fee, etc. associated with H1B visas, right ? What would happen if that fee was suddenly increased to $100K/yr ?
It would kill the H1B visa program, probably. It might also result in offshoring tech design centers, IT hubs, etc.
A solution to outsourcing labor as suggested in this article needs to be found. One suggestion is to offer lower tax rates for companies who have all their support staff in America. But that just means hiring a foreign company to provide the support so it is hidden in general deductible expenses.
One thing both imported products and outsourced labor and illegal alien remittances have in common is that money eventually needs to be transferred out of the country to pay for it. So maybe a 20% tax on transferring money out of the country would improve all these areas.
No, it wouldn't do that. SillyCrony Valley isn't going to move to India. Spoiled billionaires will have to pay decent wages for once.
Having said that as a goal I would prefer the USA to be completely self sufficient in energy(minerals), agriculture and manufacturing. The USA is among the few countries with sufficient resources to do that. Opening our markets up is foolish. You see it differently . Both positions are viable and I am sure you will ridicule and belittle my position but that's the Free Traitor™ way.
2. You really have no idea what my position is. I actually agree with a lot of what is presented here by "protectionists." What I don't do is simply accept the idea that we should mold our national economic and trade policies around proposals that have no basis in sound economics.
Being self sufficient in manufacturing is sound economics.
What I don’t do is simply accept the idea that we should mold our national economic and trade policies around proposals that have no basis in sound economics.
When the slaves were freed in the south, most didn’t want freedom. We have many conservatives here on FR that really don’t want freedom either.
Sound economics? For who?
Sound economics? For who?
There are basic economic principles. We used to be taught them. This isn’t bad: http://www.kidseconposters.com/posters/financial-literacy/basic-principles-of-economics/
I grew up with old school ag economics, such as the Law of Diminishing Returns. Common sense stuff. This is all still valid.
Because of centralization of government this all morphed into govt control economics. sad.
Regarding who? That question would indicate one is brainwashed into the concept of government economics. There are winners and losers in sound economics which is old school common sense, Not the political economics we are so used to.
My observation is that Trump understands SOUND OLD SCHOOL ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES.
We have an opportunity for freedom here, but there are all to many that want to return to slavery. We should all do a little research on what happens to most freed slaves, they return to slavery.......................
Economic theory that doesn’t include politics is worthless. There is no such thing as pure economics except in theory. Ultimately all economics is political.
People Gain When They Trade Voluntarily:
People do not produce all the goods and services they consume. Instead, they produce a narrower range of goods and services and then trade (exchange) with others to help satisfy their economic wants. Both parties expect to benefit from a voluntary trade; there are no “winners” and “losers.” This is why both buyers and sellers often say “Thank you!” after a purchase.
We have been so engrained with the concept of winners and losers by our democratic overlords, we have forgotten the concept of win/win.
If one looks closely at Trump, this is the core of almost every one of his interactions. A new language we don’t understand.
And we already know the U.S. couldn't be "self sufficient" in manufacturing anyway. Our industrial output includes a lot of things -- like cars, for example -- that rely on raw materials that are imported simply because they aren't available in North America.
Economic theory that doesn’t include politics is worthless. There is no such thing as pure economics except in theory. Ultimately all economics is political.
George Washington was a protectionist, was he wrong?
It makes perfect economic sense to sell your beautiful 13 year old daughter into slavery if you live in poverty.
It makes perfect economic sense to not treat anyone over 70 for cancer.
It makes perfect economic sense for a young women with no job, no way to support herself to have an abortion.
It makes perfect economic sense to de industrialize the USA and off shore manufacturing to the 3rd world to maximize profits.
Should I go on?
Maybe a study of classic economics, the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith would be helpful.
I will have to ask, Have you even heard of him? Most have not. He is a hard study but well worth it.
He does cover the role of politics and government in economics but modern thought, doesn’t want to hear it. But I know you do.......................
Have you ever read a history book? I would encourage you to read about mercantilism, the founding of this country and tariffs. You might learn something. Try to open your mind a little. Also, in your much need quest for knowledge, you should read what Marx said about Free Trade, your chosen religion.
He was in favor of retaliatory tariffs. Did you know that?
He recognized there was limited role for govt and lawyers. I will repeat that. There is a limited role for government and lawyers. That does not mean he promotes it.
His best contribution to economic thought was the Invisible Hand.
We don’t like the concept of the INVISIBLE HAND, because we can’t control it. All economic theory since then has the ideal that CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT can and should manage the economy. That is what I am seeing in your positon. Correct me if I am wrong.
I question why Speaker of the House is elevated here to be somehow on a par with the President. Ryan has shown himself to pretty much be a globalist stooge. I suspect anything he "wants." He has demonstrated again and again that he's not in the President's camp.
You are globalist Free Traitor™ as such you do not recognize the political/social implications of that disastrous economic policy. You are mentally blind in that regard because of your rigid ideology.
George Washington was a protectionist, was he wrong?
One of the principles of conservatism is understanding the nature of man. Idealism is for liberals. But understanding the nature of man leaves one hopeless and history proves that. So where does that leave us?
If you have a good king, life is good.
There is no perfect solution. It means we make the best imperfect decision we can.
Back to the original issue
Tariffs in and of them selves are a tool. Let me repeat. Tariffs are a tool.
They can be used for good or evil. My reading is that Trump will use this tool for more freedom. Economic Freedom, Political Freedom, social freedom, etc.
I could be wrong, but so far, the evidence............
By the way, I am insulted by your assumptions and projection. There was no reason for that except your own projection and LACK OF CRITICAL THINKING/READING SKILLS.
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.