THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

and the U.S. troop deaths continue to mount ...



link

I think the main problem with a universal flat sales tax is that the less wealthy will end up paying a greater percentage of their income in taxes than will the more wealthy. I prefer a uniform income tax where every person has the same tax exemption and every net income (i.e., net after exemptions) pays the same income tax rate.

For mathematical convenience, assume a 10% sales tax. Consider two persons A and B. A's income is $30,000 per year. B's income is $3,000,000 per year. If A spends 100% of his income to support his family, then he will pay 10% of his income in sales taxes. If B spends 50% of his income to support his family and invests the rest, then he will pay only 5% of his income in sales taxes.

I concur with Ican that it makes economic good sense to provide a safe work place even if it is for the employers' self interest. People like me sort of insist on conditions that minimize employee injury, public liability, or property damage in order to keep insurance premiums manageable, and anyone who wants to attract top notch employees will offer whatever working conditions and compensation packages are necessary to do that.

Having said that, once taxes and regulations become oppressive and/or make operation of a business unprofitable, one cannot fault an employer from shipping the jobs overseas. Is this a bad thing? It's not good, but as I pointed out in a previous post, it is better than the employer closing up shop so that nobody anywhere works.

Seems to me the choice must be made among various options:

1. Make hiring out-of-country illegal. Anybody want to try to make a good case for that?

2. Accept the situation as it is and adjust to a different job market in lieu of the manufacturing jobs that used to be here, or

3. Relieve U.S. business from punative taxes and unnecessary regulation and make it attractive to keep good paying manufacturing jobs in the U.S. again.

I personally favor Option 3.

I'm still waiting for Setanta or anybody to explain how demands for increased wages, benefits, and protections for U.S. workers is conducive to keeping good paying jobs in the U.S.

Also sales taxes are alway regressive and excessively heavy for the poor; value added taxes are worse.

A flat income tax is the only way to go.

My guess is that the Iraq debate cannot be productively continued on the sole basis that Bush is a liar. Discussion of alternatives to what Bush is doing would be productive, but too few are willing to discuss that. So we are attempting to implicitly debate which of the two presidential candidates is more competent in economics.

"We" is who, who decided that?

Those of us who are doing that of course.

You can continue to wait. I did not, and i know of no one who has contended that this is the case. As you have stated that you consider yourself insulted when i take this as evidence that you are opposed to such measures, i find this little bit of snottiness to be hypocritic in the extreme. Do you suggest that such wages and benefits ought to be eliminated? As with so much of your rambling style of disjointed discursus, this is pointless.

Well, then re-name this thread - or start a new one.

Okay, Setanta is back to debate via insult and Walter points out we're off topic. So I'm bowing out. It was a good discussion though.

So do I.



Foxfyre, I bet we agree it probably cannot be done without destroying good jobs in the US in order to keep them here. Of course that will keep them from being exported.

It's my theory that the passage of a large tariff on imported goods or services (like those imported from India) will throw the world and the US with it into a depression as deep as the depression in 1929. That depression was triggered by a large US tariff increase and consequent retaliatory tariff increases by other nations.

Suppose we pass a law that taxes all US job's that are transferred elsewhere. That of course will stifle new job creations in the US and enhance new job creations elsewhere out of fear by job creators that they may in future want to transfer a US job elsewhere.

Historically, anti-free trade laws have generally succeeded only in limiting or reducing the trade of those who pass such laws. The consequences (starvation of the populace and the flight of former private farm owners into neigboring countries) of the Zimbabwean expropriation of private farms, while not a tariff related action, is an instructive example of what can happen when one messes with free trade.

On the otherhand, Setanta may not be pleased with your characterization of this forum as a "conservative club."

Okay, economy:

the following link provides access to the full text of the report by Phyllis Bennis and the Iraq Task Force which was published in June 2004. It provides a summary of the cost of the 2003/4 Gulf war for the USA, Iraq and the world. This includes coverage of the human costs (deaths, casualties), the economic, social and security costs. (NB: it's a PDF-file!):

Paying the Price: The Mounting Costs of the Iraq War - A Study by the Institute for Foreign Policy Studies and Foreign Policy in Focus

I didn't even look Walter trusting that the cost has been horrendous and would look even more so as Bennis lays it out there.

My overriding question on all of this is and will continue to be: what would be the cost if we did not act?

Well, we'll never know now, will we? Though it doesn't seem likely that we would have had a WMD used against us by Iraq... and with all that money we saved maybe we could have hunted down Bin Laden a little faster and saved lives... plus all those civilians and soldiers would be alive today....

The cost of this war is far more than monetary.

Cycloptichorn

what would be the cost if we did not act?

I have no idea. But I suspect you have some. Tell us.

Oh Steve, you can't ask Fox to substantiate her statements....

I predict a 'I've given my point of view and you people are being stubborn and uncompromising' bowing out of the thread any post now.

Cycloptichorn

Foxy
What would the cost have been if we had not attacked Iraqyou asked. Hmm. Let's see. By Jove I've got it. Zip, Zero, Zilch. As opposed to the loss of over 900 dead, many thousands maimed and wounded,The expenditure of about $150 Billion and rising, a debt that our grandchildren will still be paying down and Osama still on the loose because of the diversion of men and material siphoned off to supply the Iraq fiasco. Does that answer your question?

A disturbing account of the fighting in Najaf by the only western reporters present:

http://www.csmonitor.com/earlyed/early_world0807.htm

From the article:



Cycloptichorn

Juan Cole has a lot more about it.

Last week churches were bombed- everyone heard about that. We were all horrified with it. For decades- no centuries- churches and mosques have stood side by side in Iraq. We celebrate Christmas and Easter with our Christian friends and they celebrate our Eids with us. We never categorized eachother as "Christian" and "Muslim"... It never really mattered. We were neighbors and friends and we respected eachother's religious customs and holidays. We have many differing beliefs- some of them fundamental- but it never mattered.

It makes me miserable to think that Christians no longer feel safe. I know we're all feeling insecure right now, but there was always that sense of security between differing religions. Many Iraqis have been inside churches to attend weddings, baptisms, and funerals. Christians have been suffering since the end of the war. Some of them are being driven out of their homes in the south and even in some areas in Baghdad and the north. Others are being pressured to dress a certain way or not attend church, etc. So many of them are thinking of leaving abroad and it's such a huge loss. We have famous Christain surgeons, professors, artists, and musicians. It has always been an Iraqi quality in the region- we're famous for the fact that we all get along so well.

I'm convinced the people who set up these explosions are people who are trying to give Islam the worst possible image. It has nothing to do with Islam- just as this war and occupation has nothing to do with Christianity and Jesus- no matter how much Bush tries to pretend it does. That's a part of the problem- many people feel this war and the current situation is a crusade of sorts. 'Islam' is the new communism. It's the new Cold War to frighten Americans into arming themselves to the teeth and attacking other nations in 'self-defense'. It's the best way to set up 'Terror Alerts' and frighten people into discrimination against Arabs, in general, and Muslims specifically... just as this war is helping to breed anger and hate towards westerners in general, and Americans specifically. A person who lost their parent, child or home to this war and occupation will take it very personally and will probably want revenge- it won't matter if they are Muslim or Christian.

I always love passing by the churches. It gives me a momentary sense that everything must be right in the world to see them standing lovely and bright under the Baghdad sun, not far from the local mosque. Their elegant simplicity is such a contrast with the intricate designs of our mosques.

There's a lovely church in our area. It stands tall, solid and gray. It is very functional and simple- a rectangular structure with a pointy roof, topped by a plain cross or 'saleeb', simple wooden doors and a small garden- it looks exactly like the drawings your 7-year-old nephew or daughter would make of the local church. This simplicity contrasted wonderfully with its stained-glass windows. The windows are at least 30 different colors. I always find myself staring at them as we pass, wondering about the myriad of shapes and colors they throw down upon the people inside. It hurts to pass it by these days because I know so many of the people who once visited it are gone- they've left to Syria, Jordan, Canada... with broken hearts and bitterness.


- posted by river @ 10:57 PM
Saturday, July 31, 20