Unless you don't buy it in the US. Are you charging a sales tax on items privately purchased from overseas? There are legal implications there. If there are no importers declaring large purchases to pay tariffs, the government really has no way to collect these taxes because they would have no jurisdiction over the sales of businesses residing in other countries.
I am not charging anything. The government has allowances on what you can bring into the country "duty-free". There are limits, and then you pay tax on the excess.
I find it hard to believe that large container ships will not be paying duty when they are unloaded at major ports. The government either collects the tariff, or turns the container ship away.
It would seem that you have no faith in the governments ability to collect taxes. They seem to have no trouble collecting taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and fuel.
I don't see Walmart building a secret underground tunnel from China... "Battle Beneath the Earth" is not a reality.
Meanwhile, any American manufacturers selling inside or outside the borders of the US would be subject to said laws. This law would quickly become shorthand for "Everything in America just got 10% more expensive. Buy from China!" People outside the US wouldn't care what the reason for the price increase would be, they'd just care about the price. In any competitive market, a flat 10% price increase would severely harm any ability to compete.
I don't see how a consumption tax on goods consumed in the US impacts US exports. The tax is on the consumer side of the equation, and applies to all goods, those domestically produced and those which are imported. If anything, it means that less stuff is sold unless consumers find other sources of income.
I don't view the law as 'Everything in America just got 10% more expensive. Buy from China!' I would view it as, "a tax has been placed on consumables in the United States to fund UHC."
We buy from China already because:
1. Their goods cost less.
2. We don't make them here ourselves anymore.
Please watch "Death by China" on Netflix for more information.
There are a few problems I have with this. First, the things that you're comparing to healthcare are more or less luxury items.
Health care costs money. Luxury items cost money. Until we abolish money, they need to be compared, as the sellers of these commodities fight for the consumer dollar.
These are things that people get with their discretionary income. Their consumption should be seen as truly optional, whereas healthcare really isn't.
Tell someone to give up their broadband connection, cableTV, air conditioning, or their cell phone. I am sure they will say, "I need this to keep up with the rest of the world..." Many will be hard pressed to part with them.
Additionally, needing healthcare is an inevitability, not an lifestyle choice.
I agree with you. Try convincing that to the electorate.
Going without healthcare often leads to worse conditions and an even greater drain on society. My diabetic friend couldn't afford good healthcare, so doctors didn't recommend proper testing. He only found out his kidneys were failing when he had a stroke at age 32. Now he's a double organ transplant recipient and blind, all because he couldn't afford a test that would have told him he needed to be on dialysis. As someone who has suffered full renal failure, his medical bills are paid by Medicare. How much could have been saved by getting good treatment when he needed it?
No argument from me here, either. But you will have a hard time convincing anyone to pay money for something that doesn't give you an answer. Nobody wants to pay thousands of dollars for a test that comes back inconclusive... You are seen as a spender, not an economizer, if you order a full battery of tests for every Tom, Dick, and Harry who walks into your practice. Eventually someone will do a cost benefit analysis, and I am sure that someone figured out the overall cost is less if you deny testing, even though a select few will suffer greatly for not having the testing done.
The rest is really just an understanding of economics.
Here's a living wage calculator. Calculate out
discretionary income for someone barely making it versus someone who makes $250K+ a year. Then calculate out how much a flat 10% consumption tax would affect them.
Now that you've seen all of the poor persons money go up in smoke, consider the
equation for GDP. Consumption is the most important driver in the equation, both as the largest portion and because of
The Multiplier Effect for Consumption. So it is in the nation's best interest to maximize Consumption spending.
Who is most likely to do so?
I like how the Multiplier Effect definition describes a factory... which likely won't be built in the States anyway.
The issue at hand is that the middle class jobs that your parents and grandparents had no longer exist in the States. That is a separate issue.
Do you propose that the wealth of the rich be taken and redistributed for health care? Or should jobs exist in the States so that everyone can pay their own way for health care?
If you don't want to follow all the links, they basically say that you're hurting the economy by taking what little money the poor have away from them. They're more likely to spend it and drive the economy than the rich, and taking it from them is much more likely to decrease income in other areas. There's a reason we have a progressive tax system.
So how does health care get funded? Again we are straying from the topic here. There are people without healthcare now. The existing health care infrastructure surely cannot support everyone "showing up at once". How does the expansion get funded? The money must come from somewhere.
Here's where I come from on the issue of healthcare:
1) The people need to take care of themselves on the individual level, but the people are also a driver for the economy. A healthier workforce is more productive, and a generally more productive workforce leads to a better economy. This benefits everyone.
2) Healthcare is an inevitability, not a choice.I don't think that something as fundamental as whether someone lives or dies, or whether they are crippled and infirm for the rest of their lives should become a privilege of wealth. As much as people like to hurl the phrase around with regards to income inequality, that is much more descriptive of class warfare in my book.
Better health care will always be a privilege of wealth as long as money is used to pay for health care, and people with means have a choice on how to spend their money.
And a final possible compromise of thought: You've mentioned before about utilities that get used having attached taxes to help pay for them, such as collecting tolls to pay for a road or taxes on gasoline to repair infrastructure. Why not taxes directly on some of the things that can be linked to rising healthcare costs? Perhaps taxes on cigarettes, unhealthy foods, etc? Maybe tax breaks for getting annual check ups after a certain age? In other words, taxing choices likely to contribute to rising costs rather than taxing everything in general? People either have healthier habits or they contribute more to the system that is more likely to service them in the future. Sounds like a win-win to me. Adding a couple bucks in taxes to the price of every pack of cigarettes could subtract $100 billion from the deficit. Wouldn't something like that be a better place to start then, say, groceries and clothing?
I think Mayor Mike Bloomberg already did that (taxing smokes) in NYC over 10 years ago. I remember a pack of smokes going from $4 to $8 overnight. I think a pack is over $12 now. Ironically, the government saw a reduction in revenue with the change. Many people quit. Others just bought their smokes on the reservations or out of state.
There is only so much you can tax one thing before you drive away all consumers... which is why I believe the most successful tax will be one that is broad based and is across many bounds.