Come Up with Three Specific Economic Policies

[soundgarden]

1.) add incentive for companies to build/manufacture etc. in America. Hefty taxes if you choose to do production overseas, nice big breaks if you produce here.

This protectionist ideal is archaic, and does not fit into our globalized world.  Give manufacturers ZERO tax, and they will still find labor cheaper in China and India.  Give breaks to manufacturers for failing to be competitive will only open the door for other nations to have an advantage.

The clear example are Unions, who are being cuddled asking to keep the status quo while the rest of the world changes.  How long can that be sustainable?

[snapple]

I hardly find it archaic. You can add more incentive other than tax breaks.

[soundgarden]

I hardly find it archaic. You can add more incentive other than tax breaks.

Whatever the incentive is; if there is a strong discrepancy between labor costs (and education) in two nations of which a company operates, then incentive policies become dangerously protectionist (or dangerously oppurtunist!)  Incentives would be really only effective if the USA traded only with, say, Europe or Canada, where our cultures of work, education, and ethics are similar.

[kirksnosehair]

Ideally I'd like to see SS remain about the same as it is today as well. However, I'd push back the age that you start receiving benefits until at least 70 if not 75. When SS started, the average person only lived to be maybe 5 years beyond the age that SS kicked in. These days, we're living on average 20 years drawing from SS. We're also healthier later in life and can probably work until 70 or 75 in a lot of cases.

Oh, I agree that it's probably time to take a look at raising the retirement age.  75 is way, way too high though.  The current retirement age for "full benefits" for a person at MY age is 68.  The current median life expectancy for a male in the United States is 78.2 overall, 75.6 for men and 80.8 for women.  You obviously have to use the "overall" figure of 78.2, so making the retirement age 75 at this point in time is a non-starter, I think.  69 or 70 may be reasonable, though.

[TempusVox]

1. Steal Underwear
2. ?
3. Profit!

A couple of points about your post Nick.
1. You run the risk of getting arrested, having a major news source pick up the story, and your future children being humilated beyond imagination when they Google your name years later.
2. ?, begs @ and % which makes no economic sense.
3. Profit! without considering Profit#, or Profit^ is irresponsible at best.

Now to expand on your idea you could:
1. Buy 20 pairs of $2.00/ pair underwear of the same color. Red is nice.
2. Open a P.O. Box
2. Take picture of your girlfriend/ signifcant other/ yourself, wearing a pair of said underwear.
3. Run ad/ post pic on Craigslist selling said underwear for 50.00 /pair.
4. Happy, happy, happy

Now that we've both trampled all over this thread, let me post something that actually ads to the discussion.

1. Reduce entitlement programs. Each Congress passes more and more and more entitlement programs that pile up on the backs of future generations. This is unsustainable. Social Security for example should be a "real" insurance type program. If you have the financial means it doesnt affect you, if you need it...its there. I'll lump in Medicare reform here too since I can list only three.
2. Cut the hell out of the size of the government. Cut it in half in the next 15 years. At current pace, it will be 1/3 the entire economy in 25 years. Presently, the govt. borrows .40 for every dollar it spends. WTF? That number is expected to double in 15 years at current rates.
3. Re-energize American enterprise through fundamental tax reform. Institute a flat tax for individuals and corporations. A single, low rate system to collect needed revenues without unnecessarily distorting economic decision making, that is also simpler and far more transparent. For corporations, the current business tax code would be replaced by a flat business tax on domestic sales of goods and services with deductions for labor costs and purchases from other businesses, including expensing of capital purchases. All business activity, including corporate, will be taxed under the new flat business tax.

[lordxizor]

Ideally I'd like to see SS remain about the same as it is today as well. However, I'd push back the age that you start receiving benefits until at least 70 if not 75. When SS started, the average person only lived to be maybe 5 years beyond the age that SS kicked in. These days, we're living on average 20 years drawing from SS. We're also healthier later in life and can probably work until 70 or 75 in a lot of cases.

Oh, I agree that it's probably time to take a look at raising the retirement age.  75 is way, way too high though.  The current retirement age for "full benefits" for a person at MY age is 68.  The current median life expectancy for a male in the United States is 78.2 overall, 75.6 for men and 80.8 for women.  You obviously have to use the "overall" figure of 78.2, so making the retirement age 75 at this point in time is a non-starter, I think.  69 or 70 may be reasonable, though.

For some reason I was thinking life exceptancy was in the low to mid 80s. So yeah, I'd say about 10 years less than the average life expectancy is appropriate.

[soundgarden]

Concerning the single income tax:

Wouldn't a single income tax give more power to the government to determine where and how much spending would be allocated?  A segmented tax system allows for the people to have a better idea of where their tax dollars are going as well as to have a stronger voice in a particular subject?  What if I don't want to pay the gas tax because I don't use any automobiles?  I would happily rather pay a tax to use mass transit.  It would be SO MUCH more difficult to get things done if there would ever need to be a raise in the single income-tax since it encompasses everything.

Perhaps a single "transaction tax" that is computed whenever value exchange hands; and no other tax.  That gives the person (and corporation) complete control and allows the government to clearly see trends and would allow them to better allocate spending.

Whatever the cases
1) Complete restructuring to our tax system
2) Massive investment in education system; increasing time in school, increasing teacher pay, and increasing easy, free, and unrestricted access to information
3) Complete and total universal health care.  Human lives and shareholder-profits do not mix well!

[lordxizor]

That's my fear with the single tax as well. So now the Feds get to divvy up all the money the entire country gets? All the way down to local governments that currently get their funding from property taxes and sometimes sales taxes. I don't want the Feds in DC deciding how much money Minnesota gets to spend on taxes.

[kirksnosehair]

Ideally I'd like to see SS remain about the same as it is today as well. However, I'd push back the age that you start receiving benefits until at least 70 if not 75. When SS started, the average person only lived to be maybe 5 years beyond the age that SS kicked in. These days, we're living on average 20 years drawing from SS. We're also healthier later in life and can probably work until 70 or 75 in a lot of cases.

Oh, I agree that it's probably time to take a look at raising the retirement age.  75 is way, way too high though.  The current retirement age for "full benefits" for a person at MY age is 68.  The current median life expectancy for a male in the United States is 78.2 overall, 75.6 for men and 80.8 for women.  You obviously have to use the "overall" figure of 78.2, so making the retirement age 75 at this point in time is a non-starter, I think.  69 or 70 may be reasonable, though.

For some reason I was thinking life exceptancy was in the low to mid 80s. So yeah, I'd say about 10 years less than the average life expectancy is appropriate.

It's a little over 80 for women, but I think you have to use the average.  Seems we agree for the most part, though.  Cool.

[rumborak]

One thing I also always thought is outrageous is that companies can "incorporate" themselves in some state where they have nothing more than a mailbox in a post office. Which usually is Delaware, where taxes are low. Same thing with international companies, where Google for example has its main seat in Ireland, even though barely anybody works in that country.
IMHO, taxes should be paid on where the revenue was created. I know that's not an easy thing to define, but at least something in place would be better than the current situation.

rumborak

[El Barto]

I might be mistaken, but I don't think foreign incorporation changes your tax burden.  It's more about cost of filing and the regulations you're subject to.  Delaware has very lenient regs regarding corporations, particularly with regards to corporate liability.  That's why people file for incorporation there.  Also, I don't think you need any presence there.  It's merely a matter of where you file the paperwork. 

[Scheavo]

Companies do different states, for different reasons. Apple has a lot of it's money "technically" in Nevada, because they don't have to pay income tax on it there. Wyoming is another popular place for corporations to put their money.

Which hurts states revenues, which helps create the shortfalls we've seen, which leads to austerity measures, which leads less jobs.

[El Barto]

They still have to pay taxes in whatever states they do business in, and they still have to pay federal taxes.  Nevada is another corporate haven state, but the benefits aren't really tax related.  Also, in a situation like Apple's, the State of California might impose penalties on them for being incorporated out of state. 

[j]

1) Personally, I think the shortage is why they're churning out PA's and NP's or at least pushing people toward that, especially the latter since they already have a good number of nurses around who can take that extra training and fill the gap. Although, I get the feeling that you'd prefer them to be seeing MD's (and perhaps DO's) only.

2) With regard to the number of MD's, I think it comes into play that there's been very little put into increasing the number of graduates by creating new schools. Like I know someone from HS in a newly created medical school, but AFAIK it was the first one created in quite some time.

Re: 1) You're probably right about that.  Although they have a less intensive formal education and training, a PA or NP really does everything a PCP can for all practical purposes.  Obviously they have to work under the license of an MD or DO, but I don't know that it makes a difference who a patient sees day to day in most cases.

Re: 2) Medical education is really time consuming and expensive for all involved, I guess by its nature.  The class sizes have to be relatively small and the necessary resources are limited.  I mean Texas has (I think) 9 medical schools, which is the most of any state besides New York, each with class sizes of <200.  One of those is brand new (opened 2 years ago I believe) and at least one more is scheduled to open within the next couple of years.

I just wanna stress again, that I mostly agree with you. I think emergency rooms should be able to turn away anyone who isn't in a life-threatening, or ya know, emergency situation. But I think some of the problems you are addressing are can really be fixed by addressing the thoroughly for-profit system we have now. The middle men and insurance companies help spur over-testing, and doctors don't actually bill the patients. Funding and subsidizing health clinics would be a pretty simple way. I mean, they sorta work like emergency rooms anyways, but they don't have the ridiculous prices associated with them. Hell, could make it simple, and build them near current hospitals, so people don't even have to change their behavior much. Can tax health care profits tremendously, and set up non-profit health agencies with public trust funds.

I mean, other countries do it, and I just can't imagine American's are that different.

I think you're right that the current system is at the core of a lot of these problems, and these solutions sound reasonable.  All I'm saying is not to discount lack of education either, which is a deeper societal problem that just manifests itself uniquely in this particular field.  As for the economics of health care, that is an interesting and unique topic too, but one that I'm still becoming acquainted with.

I've gone into the emergency room with a hurt tummy  because I couldn't shit. Is that life threatening? Oh, my appendix ended up rupturing.

Yes, that is obviously emergent and potentially life-threatening; not the type of thing I was disparaging earlier.  Glad you're okay.

-J

[slycordinator]

Obviously they have to work under the license of an MD or DO, but I don't know that it makes a difference who a patient sees day to day in most cases.

That's not necessarily true. There are states in which nurse practitioners work on their own without working underneath a doctor.

Re: 2) Medical education is really time consuming and expensive for all involved, I guess by its nature.  The class sizes have to be relatively small and the necessary resources are limited.  I mean Texas has (I think) 9 medical schools, which is the most of any state besides New York, each with class sizes of <200.  One of those is brand new (opened 2 years ago I believe) and at least one more is scheduled to open within the next couple of years.

I also think we could get an increase in practitioners by changing from having only MD's to a system similar to the UK where they have bachelor's, master's, and doctorates in medicine. Granted, I guess the PA's and NP's are serving the same purpose that a person with a bachelor's in medicine might serve.

[Scheavo]

All I'm saying is not to discount lack of education either, which is a deeper societal problem that just manifests itself uniquely in this particular field.

Ahh, well then I agree even more. Hell, you can probably win any argument against me ever, by just calling the American people stupid and uneducated. If you somehow tied it in with God, I'd probably admit defeat and believe in God.

[j]

Obviously they have to work under the license of an MD or DO, but I don't know that it makes a difference who a patient sees day to day in most cases.

That's not necessarily true. There are states in which nurse practitioners work on their own without working underneath a doctor.

I was intending to refer only to PAs with that comment, but point taken.  All that adds to the case against selecting a primary care residency, as your skill set is immediately less scarce and in demand, and part of a larger pool of people qualified to basically do your job.

I also think we could get an increase in practitioners by changing from having only MD's to a system similar to the UK where they have bachelor's, master's, and doctorates in medicine. Granted, I guess the PA's and NP's are serving the same purpose that a person with a bachelor's in medicine might serve.

Yeah, that's the comparison I've always used.  I don't know how accurate it is because I'm not too familiar with practice in the UK, beyond what their training entails.

All I'm saying is not to discount lack of education either, which is a deeper societal problem that just manifests itself uniquely in this particular field.

Ahh, well then I agree even more. Hell, you can probably win any argument against me ever, by just calling the American people stupid and uneducated. If you somehow tied it in with God, I'd probably admit defeat and believe in God.

  I knew you'd be on board with that.

-J

[rumborak]

Another policy that doesn't affect all that many people, but is still ridiculous: Stop double-taxing expats. If I were to move back to Germany at some point and work there, I would have to pay American taxes on my income, on top of the German taxes. This double-taxing already has caused quite a few rich people living outside the US to renounce their American citizenship because of that. Talk about losing your most valuable assets. Not that I'm rich, but I would probably have to do the same. Or lie on your tax forms (which is what a lot of expats do too).
The US is the only Western country that double-taxes people.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

The US is the only Western country that double-taxes people.

rumborak

Just to play devils advocate a little, how much of that is because otherwise people would abuse the system to not pay taxes? Americans are generally more affluent, so they could technically afford this more than any other country.

[slycordinator]

Just to play devils advocate a little, how much of that is because otherwise people would abuse the system to not pay taxes? Americans are generally more affluent, so they could technically afford this more than any other country.

Back in 1992 when Windows 3.1 was coming out, I was in my 6th grade class. Since it was discussed on the news that a fair number of people using computers already said they couldn't afford the several hundred dollar cost to upgrade both their computers, we asked the teacher what she thought.

And since computers were fairly expensive still at the time, she said "If you can afford two computers, you can afford to upgrade them." So put another way: If you were rich enough to buy two computers 2 years ago, you are rich enough to buy new software for them now. And clearly, that's nonsense since a guy who had the $2-3K needed for the computers (which was the rough price at the time, if my memory is right) could go through harsh times and not have a few hundred of disposable income now.

You've essentially, restated the same argument, replacing people who have enough money to buy some computers with someone who has enough to leave the country.

Furthermore, having people who can afford to pay for something twice doesn't make it legitimate to make them do so.

[Scheavo]

The computer analogy sorta works, but it fails overall. The policy is aimed at rich people in general, not one specific person. Also, there's differences between a person rich enough for a 2-3k computer, and someone rich enough to have dual residency, enough so to make the point of the analogy somewhat suspect.

But really, I only posed a question regarding the reason for why said law came into existence, and perhaps to what extent that the reason is a legitimate problem worth addressing. I think you're kidding yourself if you don't think rich people would abuse any tax loopholes to avoid paying as much taxes as possible. I never said I agreed with the law, in fact, since I'm playing devils advocate, I'm acknowledging that I don't agree with it.

[slycordinator]

The computer analogy sorta works, but it fails overall. The policy is aimed at rich people in general, not one specific person. Also, there's differences between a person rich enough for a 2-3k computer, and someone rich enough to have dual residency, enough so to make the point of the analogy somewhat suspect.

The analogy works if you understand that expatriate doesn't mean "person with dual residency." It means "person who has withdrawn themselves from residing in their home country." So a person who is a US citizen and no longer lives in the US is an expat.

To be clear, the discussion is about if I moved to China, only had income made in China, and yet I was taxed on the income both by China and the US. Any discussion of people with dual residency is a non-sequitur.

Now, I do think that there is some argument for putting some tax in place to cover the fact that expatriates still have some protection by people in US Embassies and Consulates or similar places in foreign countries, although I don't think it should be the same level as a regular income tax, since most of the "US Infrastructure" doesn't really apply to a guy living in China.

[Scheavo]

So a rich person resides in, say, France. I'm talking really rich. Technically, this person owns stocks in American corporations, or maybe is a CEO, etc. His money is technically made in America, but he lives in France full time. How is said person taxed, as of now?

[Riceball]

Don't you guys have franking on dividends? Assuming its a publicly listed company, dividends are taxed before being distributed to share owners.

[slycordinator]

So a rich person resides in, say, France. I'm talking really rich. Technically, this person owns stocks in American corporations, or maybe is a CEO, etc. His money is technically made in America, but he lives in France full time. How is said person taxed, as of now?

Honestly, this feels like you've asked again about dual-residencies a second time, while trying to make it seem like you haven't. That is, unless you actually believe CEOs of US companies spend so little time working in the US that they couldn't be construed as residing here.

The vast majority of expatriates make their income primarily in the country in which they reside (be it France, Germany, Belize, etc). And of course, taxes on American stocks would be paid to the US but I don't think those would be double-taxed, like the money the expat would make in the foreign country.

[Scheavo]

So a rich person resides in, say, France. I'm talking really rich. Technically, this person owns stocks in American corporations, or maybe is a CEO, etc. His money is technically made in America, but he lives in France full time. How is said person taxed, as of now?

Honestly, this feels like you've asked again about dual-residencies a second time, while trying to make it seem like you haven't. That is, unless you actually believe CEOs of US companies spend so little time working in the US that they couldn't be construed as residing here.

The vast majority of expatriates make their income primarily in the country in which they reside (be it France, Germany, Belize, etc). And of course, taxes on American stocks would be paid to the US but I don't think those would be double-taxed, like the money the expat would make in the foreign country.

Well, the reason I asked the same question again is becuase the question wasn't answered. Fucking excuse me for not knowing how taxes work in this country, especially not how it works for ultra-millionaries and people with 300+ times more income than me.

It's like you still believe I'm saying, I like this law, and we should do it for this reason. Like I said in the very beginning, I was playing devils advocate, and clearly asking a question regarding if certain people and situations would fall under the law.

[slycordinator]

I'm not complaining about you asking "How does this law work?" I was complaining about how you were implying that the law only applies to rich people. Further, I realize you were playing Devil's Advocate... I'm just explaining that I think the reasoning you've used for it is faulty.

[Scheavo]

I didn't mean to imply that it only applies to rich people, just that it could apply to rich people, or that it was intended to go after rich people, but snares other people in the process. A laws consequences don't have to be it's intended consequences.