Log in

View Full Version : Market-Socialism Jobs Bill



RichardAWilson
19th September 2011, 20:53
Infrastructure Spending

The traditional Keynesian Multiplier shows that $1 billion in spending will create between 10,000 and 18,000 jobs. (The range is based on if the infrastructural financing is being used for repairing existing infrastructure or building new)

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, we will need to appropriate $2.2 trillion on infrastructure within the coming decade.

Solution


Infrastructure spending should be front-loaded to maximize job creation in the here and now. Furthermore, T-Bond yields have fallen below 2%. (I.e. Borrowing for financing infrastructure spending has never been more affordable and wise)

Corporate Taxation

I hate to agree with Conservatives and right-wingers on this matter.

However:

1. Corporations are institutions.

Profits aren't the problem. The problem is how those profits are distributed. Corporate income taxation is a form of double taxation in the sense that it reduces the net-earnings that are available for distribution to shareholders.

It'd make more sense to slash the corporate tax and increase tax rates on individuals (I.e. Dividends, Stock Options and Capital Gains).

Nonetheless, corporate tax reduction should be longer-term.

In the short-term, we need to induce business spending and job creation.

The Fortune 500 are sitting on over $1 trillion in surplus cash. Historical evidence has shown that tax incentives and deductions for new capital spending are effective toward inducing businesses to spend more money.

(I.e. We should make expenditures tax deductible dollar-for-dollar with no limitation)

2. America's corporate tax rates are higher than Europe's.

There's a reason Microsoft and Pfizer have invested so much in Ireland.

There's a reason we're running trade deficits with the Europeans, even though European labor costs are higher than our own.

To the degree that capitalism is a zero sum game, it'd make sense to abolish our corporate income tax to attract foreign (I.e. European, Asian and Latin) businesses to our nation. Mainstream macro-economists have estimated that we could create millions of new jobs by abolishing the Corporate Tax.

Solution


Introduce a dollar-for-dollar capital spending tax deduction with no limitation. In the longer-term, begin reducing Corporate Income Tax Rates and purging write-offs, useless deductions and perverse incentives.

Meanwhile, tax rates on personal stock income (I.e. Dividends, Capital Gains, Etc.) should be increased in proportion to the reduction in corporate income tax rates.

International Trade

We're running unsustainable trade and capital shortfalls with the Arabs, Asians and Latins. The problem is that protectionism isn't a viable solution to the problems affecting the global working class.

NAFTA is immoral and unethical because it does make it easier for multinational corporations to enslave the working men and women of Mexico. The same can be said of our trading relations with China.

Nonetheless, free trade has provided men and women in those countries with millions of jobs that they otherwise wouldn't have in the absence of trade. NAFTA, for instance, was worse for America's workingmen than for Mexico's. The same holds true for China, South Korea and Vietnam.

Instead of resorting to traditional protectionism, we need to look elsewhere for solutions to our trade imbalance. Congress should be embracing the Warren Buffet Act, which would institute non-discriminating trading certificates that'd require importers and exporters to reach equilibrium (balance).

RichardAWilson
19th September 2011, 20:56
More Coming Soon (I.e. Trade, Energy and Education)

RGacky3
20th September 2011, 06:34
My jobs bill is better ;)

RGacky3
20th September 2011, 06:38
Mainstream macro-economists have estimated that we could create millions of new jobs by abolishing the Corporate Tax.


There are so many loopholes in the Corporate tax that many corporations don't pay anything, infact they get money back.

Thats not the reason they don't invsest in the US.

BTW, if corporations are people why don't they pay personal income tax?


Congress should be embracing the Warren Buffet Act, which would institute non-discriminating trading certificates that'd require importers and exporters to reach equilibrium (balance).

How is that possible? Also why is'nt protectionism viable? It works for other countries.


Also ... Where is the Socialist part of this? All I see here is bare basic Keynsianism.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna
20th September 2011, 09:07
Also ... Where is the Socialist part of this? All I see here is bare basic Keynsianism.

It's what you get from ACLU/Green Party cappies.

RichardAWilson
20th September 2011, 18:01
1. Corporations aren't people, they're institutions. The law should be amended.

2. The Warren Buffet Act is a form of backdoor protectionism that doesn't discriminate. Abandoning NAFTA, for instance, would ruin the Mexican economy and would impoverish millions. NAFTA needs to be reformed.

In the mean time, Mexico, like China and Europe, would be subjected to (balanced trade).

3. I'm not finished =)

RichardAWilson
20th September 2011, 18:09
It's worth mentioning that Karl Marx supported liberalized trade.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/01/09ft.htm#marx

Nuvem
20th September 2011, 18:14
-In certain countries in certain periods of social development, not as an end goal.



But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade. Quote, Marx. Not exactly your mainstream supporter; actually, his only reason for supporting it is because he believes it to be such a destructive failure that it can only increase class antagonism and hasten the revolution.

RGacky3
20th September 2011, 19:22
2. The Warren Buffet Act is a form of backdoor protectionism that doesn't discriminate. Abandoning NAFTA, for instance, would ruin the Mexican economy and would impoverish millions. NAFTA needs to be reformed.


Tell me how the Warrent Buffet act works.

Why would Abandoning Nafta ruin the mexican economy? Mexicos economy has allready been ruined, if anything it would boost the local economy because they don't have to compete with American multi nationals.


1. Corporations aren't people, they're institutions. The law should be amended.


Its not a law, its a footnote in a supreme court case, you have to amend that, or make a law.

RichardAWilson
21st September 2011, 00:06
Warren Buffet's Bill, otherwise known as the Balanced Trade Restoration Act, would have issued a number of trading certificates.

The trading certificates would be exchanged between importers and exporters until balanced trade is restored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_trade

Mexico's economy relies on American consumption. How would ruining an entire sector of the Mexican economy benefit the local economy? That'd be like believing China's economy would grow faster in the absence of U.S. Trade.

The difference between the Warren Buffet Approach and Traditional Protectionism is that one doesn't discriminate and the other often does discriminate. (I.e. Mexico would be treated the same as Europe, which would be treated the same as Canada)

Furthermore, the Warren Buffet Act wouldn't be in violation with our existing treaties and commitments.

As I've said, NAFTA needs to be reformed. A unilateral withdrawal would ruin our trilateral relations with Mexico and Canada. Should we become serious on amending NAFTA (I.e. Labor and Environmental Protections), the Canadians would back us and the Mexicans would have to embrace and enforce those reforms.

RGacky3
21st September 2011, 06:47
THe warrent buffet act would be extremely hard to impliment would'nt it? Considering we are dealing with private firms here? Your talking about Cap and trade really, which would give exporters tons of power over other industries, there are tons of problems that come with this.

Mexico has lost its local industry due to Cheap American imports (especially agriculture), and multinational conglomorates (like walmart), without those economic powers in Mexico local buisinesses could fill the void, and you could have a domestic market, you could still hae trade between Mexico and the US but just not one where American industry can take over Mexican industry, Mexico and the USA had trade before NAFTA, we don't need NAFTA at all.