- Jul 22, 2009
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
In fact, I am very suspicious of any sort of government intervention.
BUT, I live in France where certain subventions/interventions are absolutely prime-responsibilities of a national government. These I have witnessed with my own eyes. They are, as I have explained many a time, a National Health Service that does not cost an arm-and-a-leg (humour intended!), and Free Tertiary Education.
The first of which the Replicants are fighting tooth-'n-nail to prevent at all costs - a little "gift" to the 10Percenters (of total National Income) at the AMA; and the second the benefit of which is so effing obvious it is beyond-belief that it has not been implemented fully across the nation in state universities as it has for Primary/Secondary schooling ...
Lafayette, many nations do not consider healthcare, education and many other social issues as only individuals’ problems. Expenditures related to those issues are spread among all of their nations’ individuals and enterprises. Thus even when considering the effect of their government’s expenditures for some social issues upon their nations’ tax rates, the net effect of those government programs’ upon their nations’ individuals and enterprises net expenditures are reduced more than otherwise.
Additionally, similar to improving public infrastructures contribute to their nation’s economies, improvements of public health, education, custodial care of dependents while those supporting them are gainfully employed also contribute to their nation’s general economy and are supportive of their producing enterprises, (i.e. supportive of their GDPs).
[James972 of course refutes this entire paragraph, but he’s unable to explain how and why].)
Even when considering these social programs effects upon enterprises’ taxes, enterprises net benefits due to some government social programs are not factored into the prices of those enterprises’ products. Many, if not most modern industrial nations utilize a “value added tax” among their major tax revenue sources.
(I’m a proponent of incrementally reducing taxes upon the lowest brackets of net income taxes to the greatest extent feasible WHILE simultaneously increasing government social service programs that would be of net economic benefit and compensate the working poor and their dependents for their increased payments of sales taxes).
With regard to foreign trade:
I suppose all nations waive identifiable taxes within their nations’ exported products in order to reduce the prices of their exports. USA producers of exported products cannot benefit from the waiving of any federal taxes imbedded within their products because those taxes cannot be identified. But foreign nations collect taxes due to sales transaction of goods.
USA exports prices to foreign purchasers include their full share of both USA and foreign taxes but foreign imports sold to USA purchasers do not include foreign sales taxes. This is of some disadvantage to USA goods competing with foreign goods within USA’s domestic markets. Additionally because USA cannot identify federal taxes imbedded within USA exports, we cannot provide USA exporters with similar advantages that foreign nations normally provide to exporters of their nations’ goods.
The net benefits of foreign nation’s social programs to their produces of goods, reduces those foreign goods prices. To the extent that USA has much less of such economically beneficial programs, USA goods competing against foreign goods anywhere, (including within the USA) are at a disadvantage.