Trump Reversing Offshoring - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

pimpmaster9000 · 03-18-2016, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

Consider the following 2 scenarios, which show the difference between "investing" and "spending":

some sophisticated person gets a $100k tax refund... figures: "oh cool, lets build a nice house with it".... takes $100k, borrows $400k... spends $500k to build a house... so with a $100k tax refund.... $500k is getting injected into the US economy + 100s of jobs get created along with it... US now has a nice house built, which will be enjoyed by someone in the US for generations...

yes absolutely, he would be spending 500K on building material and services etc...this is a scenario where he actually builds something, this is great you will get no dispute from me...

on the other hand when he buys something already built, and new houses are a small fraction of total house buys, the situation is completely different...he will borrow 500K from the bank and return 500K to the bank...

also rich people have only a small fraction of their wealth in houses and most in stocks and these are "protected" either offshore in tax havens or by means of loop holes in the law because they can afford lawyers and advisors etc...

even if the money was not protected, and taxed, very little would trickle down...bill gates money will trickle down but the vast majority will keep their cash working for them, offshore...

you would do the same...so would I...

woj · 03-18-2016, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crucifissio

yes absolutely, he would be spending 500K on building material and services etc...this is a scenario where he actually builds something, this is great you will get no dispute from me...

on the other hand when he buys something already built, and new houses are a small fraction of total house buys, the situation is completely different...he will borrow 500K from the bank and return 500K to the bank...

also rich people have only a small fraction of their wealth in houses and most in stocks and these are "protected" either offshore in tax havens or by means of loop holes in the law because they can afford lawyers and advisors etc...

even if the money was not protected, and taxed, very little would trickle down...bill gates money will trickle down but the vast majority will keep their cash working for them, offshore...

you would do the same...so would I...

1. they are only "protected" from further taxation...

lets say I'm a house builder, does it make any difference at all where I get the $500k from? (that I will use to buy materials and hire people) It's completely irrelevant if the new owner pays for it directly... through some corporation or through some offshore scheme... I still get my $500k and I still hire the same people and still build the same exact house...

2. it doesn't really matter that much if the house is new or used either... I sell a pre-existing $500k house, now I'm the one with $500k to spend, and what's kinda odd... I can take this $500k, borrow the typical 80% ($2M) and now I have $2.5M to stimulate the economy with...

3. investing in "stocks" is not much different than investing in real estate, names are different but the outcome is the same... you buy stocks of some startup (like many investors do), Google lets say, and as a result of your investment wealth gets created, 10s of thousands of people get hired, and as a result world is a better place? sounds like a pretty positive outcome? certainly better than a less sophisticated person buying some useless widget from china that he will throw away 3 months later?

4. money doesn't just "work", it "works" when it's invested... which involves transferring the $$ from the "investor" to the "entrepreneur"... which he uses to expand his business, hire people, etc...

Grapesoda · 03-18-2016, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITraffic

it is one of the things he actually talks about the most and probably explains his appeal for many parts of the country where the american dream has all but died because of it.

no other candidate rep or dem talks about it but is a massive and painful issue for many many americans obviously.

but serious question ...

how does he actually plan to bring these jobs back to america?

unlike politicians, trump has been working for a living... different insights for sure

pimpmaster9000 · 03-18-2016, 07:01 PM

@ woj

its more of a matter what the really rich do and the big capital from corporations...the examples we mentioned are middle class...lets look at big capital,, the place its supposed to trickle from and the speed of trickle...

all big corps are forced to outsource to stay competitive, they try to hire at lowest possible cost, IE the suicide nets in apples china factory...<---this is what big investors want, bang for buck...

big capital wants sweat shop labour...so they get to keep more and in turn make more and more...it is not tricking down...the whole system is rigged for it to go up...

the rise of inequality is beyond dispute, I know it is not black and white and that some does in fact trickle down, but the big big holders of capital hold it in a system that is designed to do the exact opposite...

The Porn Nerd · 03-18-2016, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Do you think jobs leaving your marketplace is pointless?

So the migration of our customer base to free porn is pointless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I will make it simple. Your customers are disappearing and debt is rising but not because of government spending.

With all respect due you Sir, and if I may speak for Robbie here as well, you don't know jack shit about our customers and whether or not they are 'disappearing'. You know how YOUR customers disappeared and you were unable to keep them or get more of them but that does not apply to me and I assume it does not apply to Robbie.

Paul Markham · 03-20-2016, 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Money flows up is common sense but Republicans live in Bazaro world and believe money flows down. They can't grasp the concept due to their own greed that 500 people spending $20 is more money than 1 guy spending $5k. They all believe they will be that one guy who gets to spend $5k rather than being one of the 500 spending $20.

Even though 99% of them are in that group spending $20 they convince themselves that they are special and will eventually be the guy spending $5k so they vote people into office which actually makes it harder for them to be that guy spending $5k.

The problem with 500 people spending $20 is more money than 1 guy spending $5k is, where did the $20 comes from, what did they buy and the same with the 1 guy spending $5k.

500 guys on benefits spending $20 is what's causing the problems.

500 on a decent wage paying taxes and employed in the private sector making good the world buys. Is far better than 1 guy making the equivalent lump sum by importing goods from the third world.

Paul Markham · 03-20-2016, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

I love how according to Paul Markham, Trump has to solve every single issue known to mankind and has to show us exactly how it's done! But Paul never mentions or does the same thing with any other candidate.

Then Paul says Trump doesn't have any plans. Does he not watch Trump speeches or go to Trump's website? Of course not! He takes 10 second media soundbites and goes from there

Out of the 5 candidates left, Trump is BY FAR the best choice to be President. It's not even close. It's like having Michael Jordan and four fat, D3 basketball players up there

Where di I say he has to solve every single issue?

Trump has soundbites, that's not plans. Even on his website, his plans are;

Quote:

HEALTHCARE REFORM TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

Since March of 2010, the American people have had to suffer under the incredible economic burden of the Affordable Care Act?Obamacare. This legislation, passed by totally partisan votes in the House and Senate and signed into law by the most divisive and partisan President in American history, has tragically but predictably resulted in runaway costs, websites that don?t work, greater rationing of care, higher premiums, less competition and fewer choices. Obamacare has raised the economic uncertainty of every single person residing in this country. As it appears Obamacare is certain to collapse of its own weight, the damage done by the Democrats and President Obama, and abetted by the Supreme Court, will be difficult to repair unless the next President and a Republican congress lead the effort to bring much-needed free market reforms to the healthcare industry.

But none of these positive reforms can be accomplished without Obamacare repeal. On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare.

However, it is not enough to simply repeal this terrible legislation. We will work with Congress to make sure we have a series of reforms ready for implementation that follow free market principles and that will restore economic freedom and certainty to everyone in this country. By following free market principles and working together to create sound public policy that will broaden healthcare access, make healthcare more affordable and improve the quality of the care available to all Americans.

Any reform effort must begin with Congress. Since Obamacare became law, conservative Republicans have been offering reforms that can be delivered individually or as part of more comprehensive reform efforts. In the remaining sections of this policy paper, several reforms will be offered that should be considered by Congress so that on the first day of the Trump Administration, we can start the process of restoring faith in government and economic liberty to the people.

Congress must act. Our elected representatives in the House and Senate must:

Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.
Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.
Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn?t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.

Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.

Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.

Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.

The reforms outlined above will lower healthcare costs for all Americans. They are simply a place to start. There are other reforms that might be considered if they serve to lower costs, remove uncertainty and provide financial security for all Americans. And we must also take actions in other policy areas to lower healthcare costs and burdens. Enforcing immigration laws, eliminating fraud and waste and energizing our economy will relieve the economic pressures felt by every American. It is the moral responsibility of a nation?s government to do what is best for the people and what is in the interest of securing the future of the nation.

Providing healthcare to illegal immigrants costs us some $11 billion annually. If we were to simply enforce the current immigration laws and restrict the unbridled granting of visas to this country, we could relieve healthcare cost pressures on state and local governments.

To reduce the number of individuals needing access to programs like Medicaid and Children?s Health Insurance Program we will need to install programs that grow the economy and bring capital and jobs back to America. The best social program has always been a job ? and taking care of our economy will go a long way towards reducing our dependence on public health programs.

Finally, we need to reform our mental health programs and institutions in this country. Families, without the ability to get the information needed to help those who are ailing, are too often not given the tools to help their loved ones. There are promising reforms being developed in Congress that should receive bi-partisan support.

To reform healthcare in America, we need a President who has the leadership skills, will and courage to engage the American people and convince Congress to do what is best for the country. These straightforward reforms, along with many others I have proposed throughout my campaign, will ensure that together we will Make America Great Again.

There's only one part that has a solid plan to reduce the costs. The rest misses the point and often just juggles with who pays. It offers no real plan to reduce the cost of healthcare, which is because it's controlled by the free market.

I understand why you can't see how he's bullshitting. Some of us can.

Paul Markham · 03-20-2016, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

With all respect due you Sir, and if I may speak for Robbie here as well, you don't know jack shit about our customers and whether or not they are 'disappearing'. You know how YOUR customers disappeared and you were unable to keep them or get more of them but that does not apply to me and I assume it does not apply to Robbie.

With all due respect Sir. More people earning lower wages = fewer customers for leisure goods.

Because you and Robbie can work harder and wiser to replace those who have gone, isn't my point.

Paul Markham · 03-20-2016, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crucifissio

heres the thing about money flowing down...most of it does not...

when a rich guy buys a $10 million house, those 10mil are locked there for the next 100 years for example...

a rich guy can buy a shirt...he can buy 100 shirts...but he will not buy 1.000.000 shirts...he will buy a car or 10 cars but not 1000 cars like 1000 people would...so what does he do with the bulk of his money?

invest...long term mostly...long term investments do not trickle down...

most of the money the rich make is not spent but invested...this money trickles up not down in some tax heaven...

I love how they coined the term "horse and sparrow"

if you feed the horse enough oats he will shit some out so the sparrow can eat

this is literally the boldest name for a theory made by a rich guy that I have ever heard, "the poor can eat our shit" LOL

When a rich guy buys a $10 million house, he owns a company that employs people, who like him pay taxes, go shopping and pay more taxes, as you say he can buy 100 shirts. Pay more taxes and it all trickles down.

Or he can move out of the country and the country gets nothing. Or not be allowed to make so much money, so doesn't and everyone gets the bare minimum.

Spell out what the investment is before stating it doesn't trickle down.

Communism hurts the working class hard. The new Socialism is despised by the Working Class, they have no desire to share more of what have with others.

What we need is people earning enough to buy a $10 million house, by producing goods in the countries they sell the goods. Not making goods abroad and selling them in the First World or gambling a $1 bill is really worth $1.50 and expection the people to bail them out.

Paul Markham · 03-20-2016, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

Consider the following 2 scenarios, which show the difference between "investing" and "spending":

some sophisticated person gets a $100k tax refund... figures: "oh cool, lets build a nice house with it".... takes $100k, borrows $400k... spends $500k to build a house... so with a $100k tax refund.... $500k is getting injected into the US economy + 100s of jobs get created along with it... US now has a nice house built, which will be enjoyed by someone in the US for generations...

vs

some less sophisticated person gets a $100 refund... he buys some bullshit widget made in China... benefit to US economy = practically zero... US jobs created = practically zero... widget breaks in 3 months, he throws it away... China is $100 richer, US has nothing to show for it...

which scenario sounds more appealing to you?

Consider the one scenario. That person wasn't paying enough tax in the first place and the refund added to the Countries debt?

Paul Markham · 03-20-2016, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

unlike politicians, trump has been working for a living... different insights for sure

You didn't answer the question.

Quote:

but serious question ...

how does he actually plan to bring these jobs back to america?

I would add to that, do his voters understand the costs to them of bringing those jobs back?

pimpmaster9000 · 03-20-2016, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Communism hurts the working class hard. The new Socialism is despised by the Working Class, they have no desire to share more of what have with others.

my communist logo is a joke about america being closer to communism than it is to actual capitalism...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

What we need is people earning enough to buy a $10 million house, by producing goods in the countries they sell the goods. Not making goods abroad and selling them in the First World or gambling a $1 bill is really worth $1.50 and expection the people to bail them out.

human nature does not change...people do not want to produce in the 1st world and make less...1st world workers=no lube

ITraffic · 03-20-2016, 12:42 PM

Paul Markham · 03-21-2016, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crucifissio

my communist logo is a joke about america being closer to communism than it is to actual capitalism...

You have no idea what Communism is.

Quote:

human nature does not change...people do not want to produce in the 1st world and make less...1st world workers=no lube

Agreed, so a bit of force from the Government is required.

It shouldn't be hard as the people getting screwed are the voters.

pimpmaster9000 · 03-21-2016, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Agreed, so a bit of force from the Government is required.

It shouldn't be hard as the people getting screwed are the voters.

you cant have it both ways paul...

you cant produce with high cost domestic workers AND expect people to buy expensive goods domestic and abroad<---take note of this last word

you cant expect to raise taxes on imports AND other countries not raising taxes on you

even if you put in place trade agreements and you make small countries bow down, you can not force their population to buy your expensive shit...on the other hand they need absolutely nothing made in USA...the world can do without american apparel <---they will just get taxed to shit in retaliation and companies like them...

your argument basically boils down to:
prices will rise, sales will not drop...

the west is becoming more and more equal...at least the bottom 99%...means of production is money...money is more and more in the hands of a few...tell me paul, when most of the population is equal and the means of production is in the hands of a few what political system is that?

hint: it begins with the letter c...and ends with ommunism...

what could that be?

Paul Markham · 03-21-2016, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crucifissio

you cant have it both ways paul...

you cant produce with high cost domestic workers AND expect people to buy expensive goods domestic and abroad<---take note of this last word

Then carry on losing jobs.

Quote:

you cant expect to raise taxes on imports AND other countries not raising taxes on you

Taxes only apply to countries that sell a lot more than they buy and not selling a resource like oil.

Quote:

even if you put in place trade agreements and you make small countries bow down, you can not force their population to buy your expensive shit...on the other hand they need absolutely nothing made in USA...the world can do without american apparel <---they will just get taxed to shit in retaliation and companies like them...

If they need nothing of ours, we buy nothing of theirs.

Quote:

your argument basically boils down to:
prices will rise, sales will not drop...

You missed jobs will rise, taxes and debt will lower.

Quote:

the west is becoming more and more equal...at least the bottom 99%...means of production is money...money is more and more in the hands of a few...tell me paul, when most of the population is equal and the means of production is in the hands of a few what political system is that?

Equal by dropping down to a lower level and a few remaining at the top, is how communism works.

Quote:

hint: it begins with the letter c...and ends with ommunism...

what could that be?

Westerners will not accept it.

I agree that if we carry on this route the tiny few will be very wealthy and most the rest will have enough to keep the system turning. They won't have the wealth they have now because most jobs will have gone East. Or be done by machine.

So how does the 1% fuel consumerism without sharing more of what they have and looking after the less fortunate?

The Right thinks the less fortunate should starve while importing more of them to share in the rests wealth.

The Left say borrow and borrow again to repay the previous debt and add more on top.

Neither can continue. The 1% 95% rely on the West to consume their goods. Without Western Markets corporations die. It's these markets that create Corporations, Wealth and jobs. At the moment, the wealth is going to a select few and the jobs East.

You say it won't change. Think that through until you have so few customers, you're on food stamps or begging on the street. Along with millions more.

And anyone who says they have other markets. Tell us where they are and what % of sales they represent.

Paul Markham · 03-21-2016, 04:54 AM

Communism was an idea that would have fitted in nicely during 18th Century England. Where it started to take shape.

At a time when fortunes were being made in the Third World and the money was shipped to the England. It was only through the manufacture of food and raw produce.

The highest level of technology was the steam engine and gas light. Manufacturing anything required workers, they were essential. England was the leading manufacturing country in the world. Which meant high employment.

Take out the constant income from abroad, or the manufacturing. And it failed every time it was tried. Except for the leaders. Who needed to be backed by guns every time.

Capitalism relies on consumerism. Take the jobs away from enough consumers and there are fewer sales. Without huge debts keeping public sectors workers employed, the real picture would be bleak. That's the only thing keeping consumerism going.

slapass · 03-21-2016, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The problem with 500 people spending $20 is more money than 1 guy spending $5k is, where did the $20 comes from, what did they buy and the same with the 1 guy spending $5k.

500 guys on benefits spending $20 is what's causing the problems.

500 on a decent wage paying taxes and employed in the private sector making good the world buys. Is far better than 1 guy making the equivalent lump sum by importing goods from the third world.

The percentage of people on benefits in the US has been pretty much the same since the 80's.

I get that you are on a crusade over this outsourcing model. You might want to look around and see if people are really suffering or if they they just like to bitch.

Paul Markham · 03-21-2016, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

The percentage of people on benefits in the US has been pretty much the same since the 80's.

I get that you are on a crusade over this outsourcing model. You might want to look around and see if people are really suffering or if they they just like to bitch.

I'm talking about the consequences of other countries taking the manufacturing the West has. I know here in Europe decent jobs are disappearing at an alarming rate.

03-18-2016, 07:01 PM	#154
pimpmaster9000 Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 26,732	@ woj its more of a matter what the really rich do and the big capital from corporations...the examples we mentioned are middle class...lets look at big capital,, the place its supposed to trickle from and the speed of trickle... all big corps are forced to outsource to stay competitive, they try to hire at lowest possible cost, IE the suicide nets in apples china factory...<---this is what big investors want, bang for buck... big capital wants sweat shop labour...so they get to keep more and in turn make more and more...it is not tricking down...the whole system is rigged for it to go up... the rise of inequality is beyond dispute, I know it is not black and white and that some does in fact trickle down, but the big big holders of capital hold it in a system that is designed to do the exact opposite... __________________ Report a suspicious cracker: Click Here

03-21-2016, 04:54 AM	#167
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Communism was an idea that would have fitted in nicely during 18th Century England. Where it started to take shape. At a time when fortunes were being made in the Third World and the money was shipped to the England. It was only through the manufacture of food and raw produce. The highest level of technology was the steam engine and gas light. Manufacturing anything required workers, they were essential. England was the leading manufacturing country in the world. Which meant high employment. Take out the constant income from abroad, or the manufacturing. And it failed every time it was tried. Except for the leaders. Who needed to be backed by guns every time. Capitalism relies on consumerism. Take the jobs away from enough consumers and there are fewer sales. Without huge debts keeping public sectors workers employed, the real picture would be bleak. That's the only thing keeping consumerism going. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

03-20-2016, 12:42 PM	#163
ITraffic Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,726