2 ms·

First off: Capitalism can't exist outside a system to help enforce that capitalism. All systems require tax to function. This is not appropriation of profits.

by croon 10y ago

First off: Capitalism can't exist outside a system to help enforce that capitalism. All systems require tax to function. This is not appropriation of profits. The tax code is complicated BECAUSE it was lobbied so that only the few have the resources to (ab)use it. If you think that a Trump in office would not act protectionist you are fooling yourself. I'm not saying Hillary in this matter would be any better. The companies will stay as long as the US is a large market, because they need the presence. Re: your comment that you couldn't edit in on walling off. If at first we take the literal part: [1]. On the economic part, undocumented workers have contributed 10% of the social security trust fund, while only being eligible for 1/15th of that in return, so that's a 14 to 1 net positive [2]. They (undocumented workers) also pay $11.64bn annually in state and local tax [3]. [1] http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/18/donald-trump-immigration-border/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/18/donald-trump-immigration... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigr... [3] http://itep.org/itep_reports/2016/02/undocumented-immigrants-state-local-tax-contributions-1.php http://itep.org/itep_reports/2016/02/undocumented-immigrants...

punazj 10y ago
Thanks for the articles, I'll read them when I get a chance. I wasn't aware of those figures; rolling in my mind was that I'd read somewhere that immigrants took substantially more social benefits than natives (like 50% more, perhaps attributable to the culture). But I'm not sure if that was documented or undocumented or what, just a vague memory. First reaction would be that anarcho-capitalism is a thing, albeit not a philosophy I think would possibly work (See Stefan Molyneux rambling on youtube). I agree with your second point completely, the question is about the little guy. Neither of their policies would affect me much at all, so I feel it's my responsibility to vote for who I think would help the poor most. Is the third one true? For example where I live in China there is a huge Apple advertising presence even with the 10-20% price increase versus USA prices. And with free trade, couldn't it be cheaper to be a "foreign" company without losing much presence / market share? I feel like tariffs are essential for forcing companies to stay to maintain market presence, instead of free trade deals.

by croon 10y ago

punazj 10y ago

Thanks for the articles, I'll read them when I get a chance. I wasn't aware of those figures; rolling in my mind was that I'd read somewhere that immigrants took substantially more social benefits than natives (like 50% more, perhaps attributable to the culture). But I'm not sure if that was documented or undocumented or what, just a vague memory. First reaction would be that anarcho-capitalism is a thing, albeit not a philosophy I think would possibly work (See Stefan Molyneux rambling on youtube). I agree with your second point completely, the question is about the little guy. Neither of their policies would affect me much at all, so I feel it's my responsibility to vote for who I think would help the poor most. Is the third one true? For example where I live in China there is a huge Apple advertising presence even with the 10-20% price increase versus USA prices. And with free trade, couldn't it be cheaper to be a "foreign" company without losing much presence / market share? I feel like tariffs are essential for forcing companies to stay to maintain market presence, instead of free trade deals.