Let's have an import tax

[oladub]

NAFTA and GATT are not popular except with the elites and the politicians they buy. So how about imposing an import tax and offsetting this new tax, dollar per dollar, with reduced income taxes?



On another thread there was discussion about GM and WalMart both encouraging suppliers to have their production done in China to keep costs down. Free trade has turned into the wholesale export of US jobs and manufacturing. Environmental and social legislation have made US production even less competitive. Why, for instance, expand or keep production here when just moving production offshore eliminates unemployment and new employee health care costs?



Changes would have to be made. For instance, an import tax on oil might encourage domestic wind energy production combined with electric cars or people might want to live closer to work. Fruit from Chile would cost more but we would grow more of our own and eat it in season. All the way down the line though, a demand would be created for US labor. We aren't going to get out of this mild depression until there are more jobs. Demand for labor would allow labor to negotiate a larger share of the national economic pie.



One argument against an import tax would be that it discourages exports because our trading partners could be expected to follow suite. However, since our trade imbalance is so lopsided, out trading partners would suffer more if they wanted to engage in a trade war. In June, our balance of trade was a minus $50B. The longer we allow out present free trade policies to continue, the more money our country will hemorrhage.

[DC48080]

Wow....................

[Whitehouse]

I guess you're a Democrat. Imposing a tax on goods is a Republican no-no. Also, I think you would get into trouble with the WTO. This smells like protectionalism.

[jiminnm]

This is a wonderful idea, so long as you don't mind the economy sliding further down the drain into the second great depression.

[Detroitej72]

I have long been in support of tariffs on imported goods. If it costs $1.20 to make a shirt in Malaysia, and $5.20 here, make the tariff $4.00. That way, it encourages companies to move their production here, which creates jobs, gives people more buying power, they spend more in the marketplace, and the economy drastically improves. However, the global capitalists will never allow it because they like the system the way it is.

The major problem with tariffs is that corporate management[[C.E.O.s) and the stock holders want to maximize their profits so they will continue to be paid large bonuses and dividends. After all, they are not in the business of providing jobs, they are in the business of profit making. When profit is the only concern, there is little incentive to act in the publics interest.

[oladub]

Jim, Why would this slide us into a second great depression? We are losing $50B/month, our manufacturing base, and our jobs with the trade system we have now. It doesn't matter if we have Republicans or Democrats in charge regarding trade because they both promise to straighten out the trade imbalance but it keeps getting worse. We are in fact sliding into a lower standard of living if not a second great depression despite Bush and Obama's efforts to plaster over the mess with more spending.

I remember the school text books blaming the depression on trade barriers instead of excess liquidity but in the 1920's the US was a great manufacturing country which had a positive trade balance. We have since been sold out, no longer make much of anything, and have no prospects of a recovery without more jobs.

As an alternative to an import tax and two parties which have a history of betraying US workers regarding trade, what would be your suggestion to balance trade?

Whitehouse, Marx explained that costs ultimately reflect labor. I think Republicans understand the concept. Cheaper labor is an important reason to move jobs abroad. Sony just moved it's entire US IT staff from the US to India where they won't have to pay so much to pay for workers' health care and other benefits. If their IT operation was located in California, another layer of high taxes and regulations would be eliminated by moving to India. Why would anyone in their right mind consider creating jobs here? An import tax would at least encourage anyone who wanted to sell to the US market to produce in the US market. Domestic manufacturers and their employees would both be paying lower taxes to offset higher US labor costs.

[lilpup]

I guess you're a Democrat. Imposing a tax on goods is a Republican no-no. Also, I think you would get into trouble with the WTO. This smells like protectionalism.

yet China has a 25% tariff on imported cars

[Wingnatic]

Global economy as long as it doesn't include us . For exampleand you can check)
and this is just an example of one country/one product . S. Korea dumps 500,000 cars in our market per year while only allowing about 50,000 of our cars in their market . Awhile back they requested to be in NAFTA [[their a long way from N.America eh ?) we turned them down . Not long ago they made the request again , we said we'd think about it if they let more of our cars in their market , they have yet to do this . One country/one product , multiply that by many countries/many products . S.Korea don't give a crap as they are competing with China , other countries don't care because we allow the imbalance . I'm not a big fan of import taxes . I remember in the 60's-70's at foreign car dealerships , they had one display car of each model , not much of a car lot , if you wanted to buy one they would place your order and have it shipped over for around $2000 import fee . Now these other nations just back up the boat and unload whatever the hell they want . If we could get more things in other nations markets , maybe jobs would pick up . But when other nations limit what we can sell in their countries , are we not our own worst enemy by letting this play out like this ?

[Gistok]

Jim, Why would this slide us into a second great depression? We are losing $50B/month, our manufacturing base, and our jobs with the trade system we have now. It doesn't matter if we have Republicans or Democrats in charge regarding trade because they both promise to straighten out the trade imbalance but it keeps getting worse. We are in fact sliding into a lower standard of living if not a second great depression despite Bush and Obama's efforts to plaster over the mess with more spending.

I remember the school text books blaming the depression on trade barriers instead of excess liquidity but in the 1920's the US was a great manufacturing country which had a positive trade balance. We have since been sold out, no longer make much of anything, and have no prospects of a recovery without more jobs.

As an alternative to an import tax and two parties which have a history of betraying US workers regarding trade, what would be your suggestion to balance trade?

Whitehouse, Marx explained that costs ultimately reflect labor. I think Republicans understand the concept. Cheaper labor is an important reason to move jobs abroad. Sony just moved it's entire US IT staff from the US to India where they won't have to pay so much to pay for workers' health care and other benefits. If their IT operation was located in California, another layer of high taxes and regulations would be eliminated by moving to India. Why would anyone in their right mind consider creating jobs here? An import tax would at least encourage anyone who wanted to sell to the US market to produce in the US market. Domestic manufacturers and their employees would both be paying lower taxes to offset higher US labor costs.

Too bad the US government can't figure out a way to tax computer software, [[and software changes) imported from India...

[Jimaz]

... are we not our own worst enemy by letting this play out like this?

Well, certainly somebody's our worst enemy in this area but judging by what I hear on the street I don't think it's us. I'd really like to know who it is though. Whoever benefits from it doesn't seem too eager to be known or claim credit or argue the supposed merits of these suicidal policies. My pet theory is that global shipping conglomerates are a big part of it since they stand to make so much money shuffling shipping containers all over the globe.

In one sense it's reassuring that they don't want to show their face. That might indicate that they're afraid they can't sustain this destructive game in the light of day.

The only group I've heard openly pushing these policies were the neocons but they seemed to have largely vanished after their beloved global economic meltdown and suspiciously just before the teabagger distraction emerged.

The work of the parasitic saboteurs in power is never done.

[MCP-001]

America survived on revenue generated from fees and tariffs for over 150 years.

The problem is, if you're going to impose a tariff, you'll need to have a corresponding reduction in another tax [[like income).

Allowing people to keep more of their own money, means that they will have more money to spend on the things that they need and want.

Sadly, the political elites won't stand for that, which is why it will never happen.

Sorry.

[Gistok]

Well, certainly somebody's our worst enemy in this area but judging by what I hear on the street I don't think it's us. I'd really like to know who it is though. Whoever benefits from it doesn't seem too eager to be known or claim credit or argue the supposed merits of these suicidal policies. My pet theory is that global shipping conglomerates are a big part of it since they stand to make so much money shuffling shipping containers all over the globe.

In one sense it's reassuring that they don't want to show their face. That might indicate that they're afraid they can't sustain this destructive game in the light of day.

Jimaz,

The largest shipping company in the world is A. P. Moller-Maersk... better known as MAERSK... a Danish company HQed in Copenhagen...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._P._Moller-Maersk_Group

[Papasito]

One argument against an import tax would be that it discourages exports because our trading partners could be expected to follow suite. However, since our trade imbalance is so lopsided, out trading partners would suffer more if they wanted to engage in a trade war.

I'm certainly not a Democrat, I am a proud independant that takes the right to vote for a person from either party who is best qualified. And my opinion on Import Tax is: Hell Yes.

But in moderation. I feel that Import Taxes should apply to nations we have a trade deficit with, and only on the difference. For example, [[and I'm pulling numbers out of a hat here), if the US exported $10B to China, but imported $40B from China in 2010, I think we should apply an import tax on the $30B difference. This would encourage nations we trade with to import more from us, in order to avoid paying more Import Taxes. Trade with nations we have a surplus with, under this type of tax system, would be tax free, because we export more to them then we import from them.

I think this system would be fair, and rewards other nations for importing US goods.

[GOAT]

Yeah and lets start the depression all over again.

[Kevgoblue]

Yeah and lets start the depression all over again.

Huh? Where the hell do these ideas come from? Any idea why during the 50's / 60's the United States enjoyed the most economically prosperous time known in the history of the world?
Simple. Because the rest of the industrialized world was licking its wounds trying to heal themselves after the war, resulting in a healthy American economy. Americans working for American companies, and buying American goods. Dollars passed around the communities and enriched all involved. Our transition into a manufacturing [[vs. agricultural) economy was well established and productivity / profit margins were growing.
Unfortunately we are currently in a scenerio where our country doesn't make anything anymore. We have turned into a total consumer economy. Meaning our dollars are financing the economic growth of every single country we trade with.

Sadly, our elected officals are all $20 hookers to big business. Business has little to no concern for the well being of either society or individuals. Their only concern is margins acceptable to Wall St. Therefore they do whatever they can to maintain [[or perferably increase) profits. So they drop a few million to the elected folks in Washington. They in turn ensure that business will enjoy domestic policy which caters to their needs. In exchange, they can personally keep the remainder of their campaign funding when they either decide to retire or get voted out of office.

[Detroitej72]

Nations that fail to produce anything are usually short lived.

[Papasito]

Yeah and lets start the depression all over again.

It's happening anyway. Just check out the Wall Street Journal or tune into some current financial news. Most economists are predicting the worst is yet to come.

[maxx]

Why tax oil? Just cut the subsidies.

[GOAT]

Because high tariffs mean no one can import or export any goods and thus, trade becomes a standstill.

[maxx]

Because high tariffs mean no one can import or export any goods and thus, trade becomes a standstill.

What a pleasant scenario. You know, Canada is our largest supplier of oil right now.

And oil has strategic importance.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG838.pdf p.88
"... Access to foreign oil remains a top priority driving US strategy and defense policy.
The Nat. Defense Strategy issued by Sec. of Defense Robt. Gates in 2008 notes that securing access to energy resources is one of the key components of the overall defense strategy aimed to secure U.S. national security objectives ..."

The article goes on to talk about U.S. increased interest in S. American, Asian, and W. African oil. Despite Chavez's policies, the U.S. is Venezuela's biggest oil customer.
On p. 86, it talks about the Carter Doctrine about oil and the creation of the U.S. Central Command around the same time to deal with "worldwide contingencies".

[maxx]

Papasito: , if the US exported $10B to China, but imported $40B from China in 2010, I think we should apply an import tax on the $30B difference.

And how do you think the Chinese would respond to this? Would they just say, "That seems fair and reasonable given that the U.S. imports nearly every manufactured item from China because Americans like cheap products?"

[gibran]

it is hard to put the genie back into the bottle...we are spoiled with seasonal fruit and other goods at somewhat reasonable costs...we also would have difficulty in convincing companies to do the right things and manufacture here. To them it i s ok for them to have slave shops over seas ..it is out of sight and mind of our public and besides we love cheap stuff...why would we expect them to do the right thing for their biggest consumer markets here. I would have protective tariffs on some goods and services that we can afford to keep here or at least the mandate to buy American when purchasing certain goods...an example was when a school district in the midwest bought only American made band instruments...the local supplies increased their output...a little higher cost ...but better services... imagine if we schools that received federal funding only bought USA made instruments...now what would happen to the Korean companies...they would need to expand into other markets to make up the loss..

or take all foreign aid [[if countries do not have good human rights records) and apply that to our educational system to compete in sciences and engineering. The balance in trade and educationis tilting away from us and we better stop the flow of services too...

[maxx]

Even engineers and other skilled professions are getting competition from imported people who are willing to work for low wages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_vi..._numerical_cap
"...The current law limits to 65,000 the number of aliens who may be issued a visa or otherwise provided H-1B status each fiscal year [[FY). The numerical limitation was temporarily raised to 195,000 in FY2001, FY2002 and FY2003. In addition, excluded from the ceiling are all H-1B non-immigrants who work at [[but not necessarily for) universities and non-profit research facilities.[4] This means that contractors working at, but not directly employed by the institution may be exempt from the cap. Free Trade Agreements allow a carve out from the numerical limit of 1,400 for Chilean nationals and 5,400 for Singapore nationals. Laws also exempt up to 20,000 foreign nationals holding a master’s or higher degree from U.S. universities from the cap on H-1B visas.
The Department of Homeland Security approved about 132,000 H-1B visas in 2004 and 117,000 in 2005...Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman called the program a corporate subsidy, as quoted in a 2002 article in Computerworld...High-tech companies often cite a tech-worker shortage when asking Congress to raise the 65,000 annual cap on H-1B visas, but according to a study conducted by John Miano and the Center for Immigration Studies there is no empirical data to support that claim. [19]. Citing studies done at Duke, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Georgetown University and others, critics have also argued that in some years, the number of foreign programmers and engineers imported outnumbered the number of jobs created by the industry..."


Thank you, W et al.

[gibran]

maxx to you want fries with that Big Mac.. [[just practicing)...you are so right again.

[maxx]

The former head of Intel wants an import tax.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...6048358596.htm
"...The first task is to rebuild our industrial commons. We should develop a system of financial incentives: Levy an extra tax on the product of offshored labor. [[If the result is a trade war, treat it like other wars—fight to win.) Keep that money separate. Deposit it in the coffers of what we might call the Scaling Bank of the U.S. and make these sums available to companies that will scale their American operations. Such a system would be a daily reminder that while pursuing our company goals, all of us in business have a responsibility to maintain the industrial base on which we depend and the society whose adaptability—and stability—we may have taken for granted..."[p.4]