Taxes/Economey

[Al Baird]

I have been watching things happening in the world and how many companies are leaving the USA. Obama says he is going to punish those companies that send jobs over seas but if you lik taxes are sending companies over seas. He wants to tax them even more. So more of them will leave. Look at Standard oil, Crysler, Budwizer, and I don't know how many more. Want to CHANGE things. Pass the Faire Tax.

[Randy Lee Dube]

Al,

I also see Companies and even large chunks of Industry leaving our Country. I think that wages and material prices are the main reasons. (You don't have to agree)

In Industry and Companies that reduce the amounts of materials to manufacture their end-products, like cellphones, laptops and blackberry type computers, tvs, etc; they tend to remain in the U.S.

In Industries that use high amounts of materials, like construction, automotive, airplane industries, or high amounts of materials to operate automation manufacturing, they seem to be downsizing and or leaving the U.S.

As Newt is the head of American Solutions, I am writing on these forums, not for political views, just to let everyone know. I am a member of American Solutions, and have my business, innovations, and product lines listed there as possible solutions for returning manufacturing and construction jobs, among others, to the U.S. I hope many of you pick up on that with continuous reinforcing installed in buildings, structures, and vehicle body frames, you will be able to upgrade your abilities to defend and protect your homes, offices, cars and trucks, and so on, from things that destroy them currently, like tornados, wildfires, hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes, and possible destruction from terrorist attacks, accidental fires and explosions, trees and telephone/power poles, and car crashes.http://[e-mail]

[John Ansell]

Al, Don't forget about "Fees" that are another form of "TAX".  

Publication : Journal of Commerce

Date : 18th December 2008

 

FMC request will delay ports' clean-trucks fee to 2009

 

LONG BEACH, Calif. -- The Federal Maritime Commission on Wednesday asked the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to provide additional information on the impact of their proposed clean-truck fees, in effect delaying collection of the fees until at least late January.

 

This is the latest skirmish in what has become a battle between the nation’s two largest container ports and the federal agency that regulates the maritime industry. Los Angeles and Long Beach maintain that the commission has no jurisdiction over their clean-trucks program.

 

The fees are a cornerstone of the ports’ clean-trucks program, which is designed to reduce truck pollution by 80 percent over the next five years.

 

The ports intend to charge a $35 per-TEU fee on most truck traffic and will use the revenues to subsidize the purchase by motor carriers of new trucks meeting the ports’ strict emission standards. New clean-running diesel trucks cost about $100,000 each and many trucking companies and owner-operators cannot afford such costs because of the thin margins on which they operate.

 

The FMC has questioned certain provisions in the clean-trucks programs, especially a requirement by the Port of Los Angeles that motor carriers phase out owner-operators and begin to serve the harbor with their own trucks and employee drivers.

 

The ports, which are implementing portions of their clean-truck programs under anti-trust immunity granted by the FMC, filed a Port Fee Services Agreement with the commission. The FMC earlier this fall requested additional information on the fee collection, indicating that certain provisions could be discriminatory and could reduce truck competition in the harbor.

 

Under the Shipping Act of 1984, the FMC must take action within 45 days of receiving the information it requested. During that period, the ports are prohibited from implementing the policy in question.

In this case, the ports had intended to begin collecting the clean-truck fee in October, but put the collection on hold during the 45-day waiting period that was set to end on Dec. 18.

 

By asking for more information, the FMC is delaying the fee collection into next year.

 

“The commission’s request for additional information delays the effectiveness of the Port Fee Services Agreement until 45 days after the parties have submitted the requested information and documents,” the FMC stated in a release posted on its Web site.

 

“Accordingly, as the Port Fee Services Agreement is not yet effective, the Shipping Act prohibits the parties from implementing any program pursuant to the authorities contained in the agreement,” the commission stated.

 

The ports did not have an immediate response to the FMC action, although it is apparent that the delays are proving to be costly. The ports are foregoing hundreds of thousands of dollars each day the fee collection is delayed.

[flaja]

The only fair tax is a head tax.  Determine how much money the government needs to pay for its functions each year, divide that amount by every man, woman and child in the country and collect accordingly.  Then make sure that ever man, woman and child derives equal benefit from government spending.

The first requirement is impractical and the second is impossible (a millionaire does not benefit as much from Social Security as a disabled carpenter would and the carpenter won’t benefit as much from a corporate subsidy as the millionaire would).  Thus no tax can be fair.

But this certainly does not mean that the current tax system cannot be made more fair than it is now.  However, I wouldn’t want any tax reform to come in the form a mere law that can be easily changed.  I would support an amendment to the Constitution that would expressly declare what the federal, state and local governments can tax.  Also, I am not opposed to using tax laws as tools for social engineering.  If you want less of something (garbage or energy inefficiency) tax it. The centerpiece of this amendment would be replacing the income tax with a tax on wages and salaries (with large personal deductions so the tax would hit people like actors and athletes harder than it would hit teachers or garbage men).  I would also want a tax on personal and corporate debt (allowing exemptions for mortgages on primary homes).

Furthermore, my understanding is that the U.S. has some of the lowest business taxes in the world, so if U.S. companies are moving overseas, it must be because of things like material and labor costs.