How about instituting a FICA Tax on all imports?

[NNN0LHI]

Why should we all have to take cuts to make up for these lost funds into our treasury? Let the people who want to buy their imported stuff from workers who don't pay into our SS or Medicare here in America make up for those lost FICA funds on the front end of every purchase of all their imported goods. Figure out how many hours of labor were lost on every shipment of imported goods and add a FICA Tax to make up for that loss.

That will shore up SS and Medicare.

Don

[kentuck]

1. Interesting idea, Don...

Sounds fair to me.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Let's see how the repukes will argue against THAT idea.

[Trey9007]

3. Its a great idea. But...

companies will simply raise the price of those products subject to this tax, to make up for any lost revenue. They will then publicly blame the governmnet, as the reason why the price of cereal is now $10 a box. Unfortnately, the American people will likely buy into all of this.

[MattBaggins]

4. No they will not. That is an old canard.

That is a myth right up there with "trickle down" and tax cuts will make the economy boom.

Companies will suck up the cost in order to remain competitive.

[Trey9007]

7. In a perfect world, you would be correct... But

can you name one time where companies sucked up cost, especially when the extra cost comes from a piece of legislation. In this political climate, I HIGHLY doubt they would suck up costs. Just look at the health insurance industry.

[MattBaggins]

8. I would name every time

It is the same old lie that "every time" the minimum wage gets raised inflation soars through the roof. This gets claimed every single time despite being demonstrably false.

A company has to evaluate what it's competitors will do before raising prices.

The health insurance company is raising it's prices in reaction to a loss of customers from the near collapse of the economy and due to ever rising health care costs. Insurance costs were going to go up with or without the health care bill being passed.

[Trey9007]

12. You pretty much made my point...

I agree that insurance costs were going to go up, no matter if HC reform was passed or not. But in the letters being sent out by the insurance companies, to their customers. They are listing the new HC legislation as the reason for their increase, and most of America believes it. Even though their premiums have been getting higher the previous 10yrs or so, Americans still believe the insurance companies, as they blame government for the current increase.


Government is not best way to solve our import/export problem. It's not even the second best way. The American worker has the most power to stop this. The American consumer has the second most power.

American workers are the only entity in this country that has the RIGHT and the ABILITY, to demand a company stop sending work overseas. American workers are also the only entity that can demand that companies return outsourced work to this country. This can all be done with-in the collective bargaining process. American workers have the right to put into a legal and binding contract "The company must perform all work in the US". Those exact words can be put into an enforceable contract. The POTUS can not make this demand . A Governor can not make this demand. Congress can not make this demand. But the American worker can make this demand, with in the collective bargaining process. Wuuld it be easy? No. Has it been done? Yes..

The American consumer can put pressure on companies by simply choosing to buy American made progress. Yes, its often difficult to buy American because they can be very hard to find. But it is not impossible.

Americans are choosing to attack this issue using Washington, because its easier. It's easier to look to Washington, than it is to fight for a labor contract the stops your company from going overseas. It's easier to look to Washington, than it is to take the extra time and sometimes money to locate and purchase American made goods.

As American workers and American consumers, we are supposed to be the 'check', when it comes to this issue. We are failing at being the 'check', and now want Washington to do our job for us. The only problem is, when you choose to use the 3rd best option (government) available to address this issue, you get what we've gotten thus far.... 3rd rate solutions that don't, and at times can't, do what needs to be done, .

[kentuck]

9. It's a contradictory argument in conflict with supply and demand...

If a competitor offers a lower price, you cannot raise your price to make up for a higher tax. You must compete. That is the law of supply and demand.

[dkf]

11. Once the economy starts recovering they will start jacking up the prices.

They only kept their margins earlier by cutting costs, Aka laying off people. Eventually they will start raising prices.

[kentuck]

13. Even if people stop buying their product?

If the price goes up, people start to look for a better price. Unless, of course, you are talking about monopolies, like the oil companies?

[dkf]

16. I've seen the shopping frenzy.

For some odd reason people seem to have the funds to buy buy buy again.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. Thereby making the U.S. alternative more attractive.

:think:

Tariff's in a nutshell.

[NNN0LHI]

20. You are right. The era of $2 dollar flip flops may very well be over

Which I don't see anything wrong with.

Don

[Motown_Johnny]

22. we are talking about taxing imports, it will help make domestic products

more competitive if the price does go up (that is kinda the idea of import taxes) and that will help create manufacturing here

[pa28]

25. I don't think I'd use cereal as an example.

That's actually a product where domestic producers still dominate. If you plug in something like "cars" your example works better and as an added bonus American brands would look more favorable in the market.

The whole idea would certainly result in a trade war but I'm not sure that would a bad thing for our economy right now.

[AngryAmish]

6. Mr. Smoot, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Hawley...

Anyway, nowadays import duties are mostly a function of treaties. And treaties are the highest law in the land, short of the Constitution of course. So congress raises a FICA tax on imports. Business A gets hit with the tax, sues the government, wins (since treaty trumps the statute) and gets mney refunded and their attorney's fees paid also.

Good idea, but illegal.

[Sherman A1]

10. Yup!

Like you said, good idea... just illegal.

[kentuck]

14. Who declares a law passed by Congress "illegal"?

The Supreme Court?

[AngryAmish]

15. First a federal district court

Then if the government wants to appeal then the appeals court decodes to uphold or reverse.

Then the supreme court if it wants to.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison> This stands for the provision that the courts can review acts of congress for constitutionality. It isn't in the constitution. But we all go along with it anyway.

[kentuck]

17. Just like they are doing with healthcare reform?

How will that turn out?

[AngryAmish]

19. I don't know how healthcare reform will turn out.

But the process is the same. Kinda - they are looking to fasttrack HCR to the supreme court.

[Motown_Johnny]

23. we can back out of our trade treaties

You are correct that our treaties need to be taken into consideration, but they are not engraved in stone. There are always escape clauses. It may take 6 months but at the speed most of the things done in this country move that would be fast.

[RC]

18. Not a good idea for the same reason getting a influx of money from general revenue is

It open it up for defunding at some future date. Make it dependent on the General fund. It is not now. We need to keep Social Security separate, as it is now.

BTY, Social Security being bankrupt by 2035 is only a worse case scenario being put out there by the Republicans as a forgone conclusion, when it is not, so they can destroy it. Getting our Living Wage Jobs back into this country would do far more to shore up the worse case Social Security far beyond 2035 than any other plan being put forth.

[Motown_Johnny]

21. I have been posting this idea for months

and I am all for it, it solves 2 problems at once IMO. Helping fund programs that are going to have problems with the baby boomers and helping to make domestic products more competitive.

[pa28]

24. Globalist trade policies are religious dogma for the "serious people" in Washington.

Like Ted Haggard preaching moral righteousness while living a second life they all know the concept has failed but the free trade faith has helped make them wealthy.

It's a great idea but don't hold your breath.

[TexasObserver]

26. recommend

[Riftaxe]

27. Why go the long route of a regressive tax,

would it not be quicker just to impose and additional 7.65% on people with incomes below the poverty level?