Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tsigprofit who wrote (7596)	3/7/2004 3:15:07 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

US demands more imported food Australia is in the box seat to capitalize on a doubling of food imports to the United States. By 2020 the US Department of Agriculture is forecasting that nearly 20 per cent of all food consumed in America will be imported. USDA economist Alberto Jerardo says the desire for top quality produce "out of season" and the favorable currency exchange should help Australian efforts to meet that demand increase. Alberto Jerardo: US imports of fruits and vegetables and grain cereals have gone up dramatically in that time, as well as red meat, from Australia, has gone up. Beef and pork imports by the US have gone up. So overall you see this pattern of rising US import share. This is a transcript from the ABC National Rural News that is broadcast daily to all states on ABC Regional Radio's Country Hour and in the city on ABC News Radio.

To: tsigprofit who wrote (7596)	3/7/2004 9:15:59 AM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 20773

Using the tax code for policy creation has led to a massive tome that often defies interpretation even by specialists of particular sections of the IRC. I'd go the other way. Eliminate tax breaks for corporations that have certain percentages of jobs transferred outside the country. The long and the short of it is that market forces will go where there is efficiency and I don't think we can do anything about that. If an Indian engineer can do virtually the same job as one here, then it's tough to argue for artificial subsidies. However, those who transfer jobs should not have deductions and credits available to those who do not do that and compete here. Maybe I'm saying the result will be the same but the tax code needs simplification not complexity. I strongly feel the Ronny Regan 17% postcard return is the way to go. Social policy and special interests need to be removed from the tax code. You'd save hundreds of billions in moneys that go to lobbyists, tax specialists, and those in the underground economy. Enforcement would be much simpler and it would be easier to enforce heavy penalties on those who don't report income. Why is there such a huge underground economy? (CH post) Who could possibly write ATM so that it hits those of us considered "super wealthy?" (Dale B post) Those same people who are now being critical of the current administration will bring more complexity, more money for cpa's and tax lawyers <gggggg>. If Kerry were to be dynamic, he would simplify and carefully delineate policy, rather than just be critical of Bush, his war record, his support of "super wealthy," and he'd have a real chance of not only winning but changing the US. So far, I don't think it will happen. It's easy to say "roll back the super wealthy" tax cuts. (Can't you hear Kerry with that intonation adding "Don't let the door hit you on the way out.") What will that really mean? We all know that the "super wealthy" will be you and me and all of us who work our arses off and make a decent living. The real super wealthy will continue to have charitable foundations, generational trusts, overseas shelters, and myriad other devices. The only "super wealthy" that will be affected if Kerry gets in, I'm afraid, are you and me. Just callin' 'em as I see 'em.

To: tsigprofit who wrote (7596)	3/7/2004 1:15:01 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 20773

..tax credits for companies in certain industries.. Which industries? This means picking favorites and deciding which industries should get government protection and which shouldn't - white collar IT workers, yes(?) - textile factory workers, no(?); call center employees & telephone operators, yes(?) - shoe factory workers, no(?). My industry, yes - somebody else's, no - is what it boils down to ultimately. I think it makes sense to either have free trade or total protectionism - build barriers to effectively keep out ALL foreign goods and services - I think history has shown free trade is the better policy. One can argue things might be different today because the job absorbing nations of today (China and India) unlike those of past decades (Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, etc.) have such immense populations they can pull so many jobs out of our country in such a short time the economic dislocation will be more than our economy can handle. Personally, I still am on the free trade side. Also its common knowledge that what drives the outsourcing and movement of jobs abroad is the wage differential. And I think that is sufficiently wide that tax credits to overcome it would have to be enormous. So enormous as to defacto eliminate corporate taxation of the favored industries, I suspect. JMO's Oh, re. agricultural subsidies - they exist for political reasons. Rationally they should be fazed out all together.