Friar Bijou wrote:
Just make the economy so successful, so open, so capable, that it becomes a labor powerful job market.
SOME THOUGHTS ON HOW CREATE SUCH AN ECONOMY.
1. Universal heath care so you have healthy population.
This is a chicken and egg problem though. If you have a robust labor empowered job market, then providing health care becomes a value positive thing for employers across the board, and labor has the power to demand it. If you don't, then to the degree that employers wont see it as valuable (they can replace labor that becomes sick easily), then it *also* becomes a cost loser in terms of public funding via taxation. Again, assuming we're talking about economic impacts here.
There's also the factor that benefits (including health benefits) from an employer act as an incentive for workers to strive for more productive jobs, which means a bigger and faster growing economy (again, we're talking about the economy here, right?). Giving people free health care for sitting on a couch doing nothing is economically negative, not positive.
2. Pay for college for people who can't afford it (and qualify). An educated citizen is a productive, innovative, useful citizen.
This is a can of worms all the way around. If we again stick to what creates a healthy economy, this only works if the education is in areas that are actually in demand in the workplace and which are productive to a degree which justifies the cost. So if we go this route, we should restrict it to degrees that are actually needed and deemed to be economically valuable. Er... But the last thing I want is the government making this decision (and I suspect you don't really want it either). So I think it's a bad idea. I would be much more in favor of encouraging companies to create more scholarships, specifically for fields that apply to their workforce needs.
Heck. Why not have companies do something like apprentiship programs where they hire young people out of high school, have them work part time, and also pay for college education at the same time? You get real work experience, and get classroom instruction, while obtaining a userful education which you know will ensure gainfull employment. As opposed to right now where a scary high percentage of college kids get out and find that the degree they chose has little or no demand in the workforce, so they are at best working somewhere that doesn't use their field of study (relying on just having a degree to get them in the door), or still sitting around asking folks if they want fries with that, with a useless piece of paper gathering dust.
There are a number of ways to approach this that isn't just "pay for kids to go to college". Again, we're focusing on what might create or sustain a healthy economy. Spending money on things with no connection to whether those things result in a more productive workforce is unlikely to create that desired result.
I'm going to swap the order a bit here to make more sense:
4. EVERYBODY pays taxes on all their income. EVERYONE pays into Medicare (or, preferably the Universal setup) at the same % of total income.
Are you arguing that everyone should pay the same rate for all taxes on everything? I'd actually be fine with a flat tax across the board. I suspect you don't actually want say a flat 10% tax on all income earned, with no deductions (but it's unclear from your post). What I keep seeing is Democrats wanting the same progressive tax rates on income, with tons of deductions and exemptions which benefit lower income people, while heaping higher taxes on "the rich", reducing deductions where possible, and then also removing the income limit on payroll taxes. Which is just a way of saying "tax them more and not me".
It's a bit unfair to say "EVERYONE", when you really mean "THEM". Again, I'm inferring from your post, but at least the second part only results in changes to taxes for folks earning more than $132k/year. So that's not really "EVERYONE" at all, right? Unless you're ok with putting the same "flat rate on every dollar earned" for income taxes, then this isn't about fair taxes for everyone.
And that's again missing out on the whole "healthy economy" bit. Taxes don't grow the economy. Money left in the investment portion of the private enterprises does. That's *exactly* what you are targetting with this. So it would have a negative effect on economic growth, job creation, upward mobility, etc.
3. US companies must return production the the US and/or pay HEFTY fees for keeping those jobs offshore.
5. Businesses pay a straight tax on gross income, again, with no deductions/other bullshyte. No offshore banking for ANY US citizen.
This is the same "stick and stick" approach Obama tried. It failed. Badly. You have to reward companies for doing business in the US, and hiring in the US. Saying "we're going to tax you more for business you do here *and* we're going to tax you even more more if you do business offshore" is a great way to get businesses to just move their headquarters out of the US and then you lose 100% of the potential tax revenue.
Also. I thought we were trying to create a healthy economy. I'll point out again that the government is not the economy. Increasing the taxes the government collects does not make our economy "bigger" in any way. It's strange that some people seem to think this for some reason. The economy is made up of private citizens runnning their own businesses, making things that people will buy, and paying people to work for them doing this. That's about productivity, not taxation. Taxes don't build anything. They just take away from the economy.
This was demonstrated, massively, when all it took was Trump removing the Obama era regulations to cause the economy to boom. Funny how that works.
I'll also point out that you're putting some strange language in there. I'm not sure if you just don't know how businesses (much less corporations) work, but you can't say something like "straight tax on gross income, again, with no deductions". Um... The biggest "deduction" businesses take are their business expenses. You said "gross income", not "net income". Net income is gross income minus expenses. Taxing gross income would bankrupt pretty much every business almost imediately. Many businesses (especially retail) have 5% or less net to gross ratio (meaning that they only keep about 5 cents for every dollar in gross income they make after expenses).
I'm assuming you didn't actually mean what you literally said. But it's worth pointing out. This gets doubly strange when you deal with corporations instead of privately owned businesses, since corporations technically can always put any earnings into additional expenses unless they actually disperse those earnings as dividends to their shareholders (or take as profits which may in turn increase share price). There's no single owner of a corporation into whom's pocket all profits go, and to whom you can simply apply taxes. Things that seem really simple and clear when shouting them in a protest line, or writing them on a bumper sticker, are not really that clear or simple at all.
Just as an aside, change the law so any financial crime like we've seen lately, say for instance the Trump Uni fiasco or insider trading, that sort of thing ALWAYS falls under the RICO act and as such ALL assets of the guilty are forfeited PERMENANTY, along with prison time to be spent in the STATE prison system and not some Federal "prison".
Is this because you really think this is a good idea (in general much less from an economic point of view)? Or is this more about targetting one specific person you don't like? Cause if it's the latter that's a terrible reason to change laws. Setting that aside, the RICO requirements are high specifically because the penalties are significantly greater *and* the burden of proof once in a trial are lower. Applying RiCO penalties (higher penalties even) to cases that aren't atual cases of racketeering (just the run of the mill schemes) would be harmful I think.
On the flip side, I do agree with you that these "get rich quick!" schemes are obnoxious and are more about milking money from their customers than helping them actually get rich themselves. But that's always the nature of a free market. Buyer beware is a good concept. If something seems to good to be true, it probably is. The problem with cases like this is that some people will take those seminars and classes and actually make money based on what they learned. But those people likely are of a mindset and personality type that would do well in sales, real estate, or whatever anyway. Those who are not, will not do well, and will feel like they got ripped off. This makes it tricky to determine if something actually is a scam or not. I'd certainly not want to automatically apply RICO to them just on what is likely a very subjective opinion of a business model that many of us (me included) find to be slimy even when it is legitimately operated and intended.
Everyone does hard sells. What do you want to do? Put everyone who calls you up and tries to sell you a time share in jail and make them forfeit all earnings they've ever made? Seems a bit harsh. How about the person in the mall who walks up to you and encourages you to come to their kiosk and look at whatever thing they are selling. Same deal right? Probably junk you don't want or need. Heck. Let's not get started on the folks manning the stalls at state fairs...
Back to the economic angle, you'd probably hurt more business than help it with this idea. There needs to be a cautious balance between passing laws that protect consumers and creating regulations and laws that hamper businesses so much that they don't dare engage in certain types of business out of fear of running afoul of those same laws and regulations. Heck. Just having so many can prevent some businesses from starting up in the first place. You can violate some law you didn't know existed simply because you couldn't afford the big bucks to hire a team of attorneys to advise you. And the second you do something crazy like try to sell your little businesses goods over the internet, and therefore accross state lines, your likelihood of violating some law, somewhere significantly increases. All of that acts to ****** business creation and growth.