|
|
Post by Dom Strom on Dec 4, 2016 22:29:09 GMT -6
Donald Trump doubles down on 35% tax for businesses that ship jobs out of U.S. money.cnn.com/2016/12/04/investing/donald-trump-tax-jobs/index.html This article written by David Goldman talks about new President elect Donald Trumps tax plan and its possible positive and negative effects on the economy. Trumps idea is to enforce consequences on companies deciding to take there jobs to other countries such as Mexico or China. Already, it has saved 800 carrier factory jobs from being sent elsewhere. Considering this, its positive effects are already being shown. The way Trump will make this work is by enforcing a 35% tax on those companies deciding to offshore there jobs or "build a new factory or plant in the other country, and sell its product back into the U.S." Also, Trump plans to implement tax brakes on those companies staying in the U.S. down to 15% including "reduced regulations on several industries". By doing this, companies will be forced whether to decided to accept the 35% tax rate and offshore there jobs like many have been doing, or stay in the U.S. with tax breaks. Opposing viewpoints to Trumps idea express concerns that politicians shouldn't get involved in business decisions, and also that prices would be raised for Americans. One relation to this article to what we've done in class is when we talked about our current tax system and how it actually works. Trumps plan is to decrease taxes which will then give people more spending power. This article also relates to when we talked about the national debt. With the decrease in taxes, will funding for other things have to be cut?, or will the economy get boosted because of the increase in spending power of the people and more american jobs? Time will tell whether Trumps plan will work or not. In conclusion to the article, I feel as though everything will work out for the better and the economy will improve. If companies do choose to offshore they will be taxed more, and if not there will be more jobs here. I believe that this system will work out for the better and if not it can always be changed. |
|
|
|
Post by Austin Hebel on Dec 7, 2016 16:54:16 GMT -6
In response to Dom's article:
I think that Donald Trump's idea of raising taxes on business who outsource jobs to other countries is not necessarily a good thing. First of all, the price of items made in the U.S. will increase due to inflation because the cost to make the goods in the U.S. is significantly higher than in other countries around the world, such as China. However, I do believe that some jobs need to be brought back to the U.S. because it will bring in more jobs for Americans which will make the unemployment rate go down. The article says that it would be difficult to enforce this tax which I strongly agree with. There's no real way to monitor this unless you create a company or someone to be constantly looking into each and every business in the U.S. all the time. I do believe that some politicians need to be involved with business just like I believe that some business people need to be involved in politics. That way it's sort of a checks and balance system that makes sure both sides will benefit in some way or another. All in all, Trump's tax idea has some positives to it, but it also has a lot of negatives to it as well. It's a tough decision for him to make, but that's his job as the next President of the United States.
|
|
|
|
Post by Miranda Decker on Dec 8, 2016 20:06:40 GMT -6
In response to Dom's article:
When looking at future president, Donald Trump's plan to double down on thirty five percent of "any business that leaves our country for another country, fires its employees, [or] builds a new factory or plant in the other country, and ... sell its product back into the U.S.", I strongly believe that the positives out weight the negative aspects. By creating this tax change, I think more jobs will be forced to stay in the U.S. which will bring in many more jobs for unemployed Americans, which is currently a huge issue in today's current economy. It is definitely shown in the article that Trump is taking this subject quite seriously, especially when he states that the companies who choose to relocate outside of the states deserve "retribution" and have been "forewarned", this shows that although this tax process will be very difficult, he will do everything in his power to go through with it to benefit America. It does concern me that the thirty five percent tax would raise prices for Americans, which explains why so many oppose Trumps' decision, and could lead to more problems down the road. Although new elect, Donald Trump, may have a lot on his plate with this new tax raise on companies who choose to move elsewhere, by the way he speaks of it (& if he can hold his promises) I think that this could have great benefits for Americans as well as some cons here and there. It will be interesting to see how much this could truly impact unemployment rates in the future, and how America's companies will react to this new tax rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chaseton Ashley on Dec 11, 2016 18:01:18 GMT -6
Trump: US doesn't 'Have to be bound' by 'One-China' policy www.cnn.com/2016/12/11/politics/donald-trump-china-taiwan/index.htmlThis article explains the situation about how President-elect Donald Trump's phone call with the leader of Taiwan on Friday, followed by his tweets about China on Sunday, hinted that when he takes office next month he is going to make an attempt to take a turn from America's long-standing one-China policy. Mr. Trump was interviewed on ABC News and said he understood the principle of a single China that includes Taiwan, but declared, "I don't know why we have to be bound by a one-China policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade." He repeated in an interview many of the criticisms he made about China, about trade and currency control. China is angry and believes the phone call and tweets were disrespectful. ABC News learned that the call was expected and likely arranged by people in his transition team. I think Friday's phone call doesn't mean Trump will indeed change the one-China policy but this situation gives us a taste of what Trump could put this country through. Trump is a man who makes impulsive moves and seems to not understand their meaning. |
|
|
|
Post by Kylee Macke on Dec 14, 2016 22:00:06 GMT -6
Reply to Chaseton's current event
I think it is a little extreme that China is reacting over a congratulatory phone conversation. Regarding the conflict between China and Taiwan, and China thinking it was disrespectful, I don't think Trump should've tweeted about it the way he did. All of his tweets can come off to be rude, especially when it is regarding foreign affair, it could be taken out of context too easily. However, China does currently have a lot of control over us and has caused conflicts with smaller countries like North Korea and Taiwan. I think that the aggressive take Trump has with ideas with possibly get us somewhere with China, however it might not be a good thing either. On the plus side, Terry Branstad, our current Governor will be over in China, because he has relations over there, so I think with Trump making aggressive moves and Branstad being over there as well, we could possibly get out of the "One-China" policy and have more power over them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colton Klemme on Dec 14, 2016 22:04:08 GMT -6
In response to Chaseton's article:
This article has a very interesting topic, one of the biggest "traditions" of the U.S. Presidents was ignoring Taiwan as a country but Donald Trump broke this tradition. This statement of President-elect Trumps shows how his Presidency will most definitely not be tradition. He is already changing how Presidents are viewed even before he is in office. This phone call can also be extremely dangerous for the United State's trade deals with China. If China does in fact decide to cut off trade relations with the U.S., citizens can expect to see an increase of prices for many things because many companies use China as a base for factories and if they have to move their factories to the U.S. the items they sell will increase. The main reason prices will increase is due to cheap labor in China because they do not have minimum wage laws. Trumps moves might do some good but if he is not careful, Americans could see an increase of prices in certain items if we lose relations with China.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Stanley on Dec 18, 2016 18:22:31 GMT -6
Chick-fil-A and free speech www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/randazza-first-amendment/It seems that some people are still confused when it come to the First Amendments. In the article it explains how Dan Cathy the owner of chik fil A expressed his first amendment right by explaining how he was against the practice of marriage equality which drew opposition from politicians and citizens. He did this because he is against serving people in his restaurants that are openly gay. Some of the criticism crossed the line, offending the First Amendment although Some did not. Which the author then used his example of how when he was younger and somebody offended his girlfriend and the guy said he was just exercising his First Amendment he then explained how he would defend him against the government but that wouldn’t stop him from punching him. He then went one about how the owner has no First Amendment right to our approval, or to our money for his sandwiches. He then went on to explain that “A city can't deny permits because it disapproves of the owner's exercise of his First Amendment rights. “ I kinda feel like nothing negative will really happen to the owner or the business because how big of a franchise it is today. He could maybe see a lot of people liking him a little less and maybe a drop in sales but overall i don’t think it will ruin the franchise because of how popular it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Kayla Oborny on Dec 18, 2016 19:24:38 GMT -6
In response to Chaseton’s current event
Trump received and answered a call from Taiwan, which has started controversy. I think that it was not wise for Trump to pick up this call. Trump tried defending himself, saying it would have been insulting to not answer. Why did Trump pick up this call in particular? Trump is going to be our president, and knows that we haven't talked with Taiwan in a long time, so why would he change anything now. Picking up this call is disrespecting our relations with China, and might cause serious problems. Already, China has made comments about Trump in their newspapers, calling him ignorant. Trump campaigned that he was going to make America great, but right now he is hurting our relations with other countries, making us look bad. We have been shocked by Trump before when he talked with Vladimir Putin. I think that Trump needs to do what's best for his people and his country, and right now he is not showing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paige Stewart on Dec 19, 2016 17:17:16 GMT -6
In response to Matthew Stanley's current event
The current CEO of Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy, made statements sharing his views letting the world know that he opposes same sex marriage. The article goes on to explain that he had every right to share his views and the public and customers have every right to make a choice to not frequent his stores or purchase his sandwiches if they don't like what Dan Cathy is preaching. Several politicians spoke out against Cathy and the possibility that his stores would not be welcome in their communities. While communities have the right to regulate what business are aloud operate in certain areas, they also must follow proper protocol and zoning in order to grant permits or deny certain businesses licenses at any given time. This was described using the example of communities controlling where strip clubs and adult book store can operate. The author suggests that the politicians that spoke out against Cathy may be abusing their power. I worked at the Chick-fil-A in Ankeny in 2014-15 and was unaware of the CEO's political beliefs. The local manager that trained me and others never indicated that we weren't to serve or treat any customers differently for any reason. While I personally do not agree with Dan Cathy, has created a popular franchise with a very loyal following and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake Gilbert on Dec 19, 2016 20:59:17 GMT -6
In response to Matthew's current event.
To start, I don't think that the fast food company will see any significant dip in sales as I do not believe that people will consider this whole thing when deciding on where to eat unless they strongly believe in one way or the other. I also think this because the company will be able to expand wherever they see fit without anyone telling them that they can't just because they disagree on certain topics. I think it is interesting that so many different things can be used to define different rights, making some of them clearer than ever before. This also shows that it doesn't necessarily take a court case to show people how to interpret certain rights and in this case it is the right to free speech.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arwen Oakley on Dec 20, 2016 15:33:29 GMT -6
Responds to Matthew Stanley:
The First Amendment does protect one's right to speech. The protection is often misunderstood. In the article, Chick-fil-A and Free Speech, Marc J. Randazza explains, "a city can't ban adult bookstores because it doesn't like the books it sells." This means that the people do have free speech, but it is limited to other's rights. As long as Dan Cathy, CEO of Chick-fil-A, don't discriminate against those in the same-sex marriage. Likewise, the city can't discriminate against Chick-fil-A because of Dan Cathy believes and opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Taylor Heyerdahl on Dec 22, 2016 10:34:42 GMT -6
In response to Matthew Stanley:
In the article, it discusses how the CEO of chik-fila made statements in which he disagreed with same-sex marriage. While these statements offended many, he had the right to free speech as stated in the First Amendment. When the article states that "... a city can't ban adult bookstores because it doesn't like the books it sells" (Randazza), this clearly shows how the CEO had a right to state his opinion, and he should not be punished because others don't agree with his opinion. Because Dan Cathy possesses these strong opinions about gays, he cannot discriminate against them by refusing them service in the restaurant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex Kopriva on Dec 22, 2016 10:41:50 GMT -6
In response to Matt's article:
The CEO of Chick-fil-A has the right to express his views through his First Amendment. Now while these may be unpopular, he still has the right to think what pleases him. The only thing that would become illegal and unprotected would be if the business as a whole began to discriminate based on any prejudices they had. Whether it was one or more than one person, it is unconstitutional to discriminate against someone because they express themselves. The city is not allowed to prevent him from beginning business there because of his beliefs, since they are protected by the constitution. We have discussed all of our amendment rights in class recently, and discrimination has been a part of these discussions. Whether the beliefs are unpopular or popular, they have the right to them if protected under the constitution. I also do not believe the company's numbers will drop in response to this expression from their CEO. Some people probably don't care, and others probably won't even hear of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tanner Iverson on Dec 22, 2016 13:58:05 GMT -6
In Response to Matthew's article:
Sometimes I am shocked by how over-reactive society is. I do not believe this issue will have a strain on the business of Chick-fil-A. Although some in society do not respect the CEO's beliefs, they cannot discriminate. Each person is entitled to their own opinion. Without this, I am not sure out country would be able to have as advanced and high functioning as it is. I think society uses the saying "I am exercising my First Amendment right" too loosely. People who say this usually do not know that they do not have unlimited rights (as we have learned this year). People's rights are limited. They are limited based on others' rights around them. As same sex marriage is a highly talked about topic right now, I think it is necessary for out courts to take action and analyze this according to the Constitution so we can move on and declare this either constitutional or unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben Frederickson on Dec 28, 2016 13:25:46 GMT -6
In Response to Matthew's article:
When looking at the reporters informative lesson over the cities use of zoning you can infer a bunch of things. When a city receives a complaint about a business it could likely be possible if the city could find some "adverse secondary effects" and remove it. In my eyes that doesn't seem right at all but due to a interpenetration of the case Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc. If we could support a revisit of this maybe business who were forced to move could come back into the light, although it might have the effect of making more 'shady' and no so kid friendly business to come to most streets. In all though it wouldn't then be abused to limit the 'marketplace of ideas' that our nation has. This way people can pick and choose which businesses to support and choose to let other business just go out of business.
|
|
