Economic Freedom Zones
Rand Paul has proposed a rather unique idea to help the poor. therightscoop.com/full-speech-…
He suggests creating "economic freedom zones" for poverty-stricken areas nearing anarchy, like Detroit. This plan would bring tax rates to 0% in those areas, effectively creating tax havens to encourage economic development in the places that are worst served by our society. One condition for this is that to take advantage of the 0% tax rates, companies have to hire workers who live in that zone.
Who could possibly dislike this? It takes the Democrat ideas of economic stimulus and implements them in a way that actually makes good economic sense, by allowing for more liberty rather than more government direction of the flow of wealth.
Who can deny that this will work? If you believe that tax havens draw in outside investment, then (if you're not a raging hypocrite) you have to believe that this will create a private sector stimulus.
So what do you think? Shouldn't we give poor cities like Detroit the benefits enjoyed by places like Singapore, Switzerland, and Luxembourg?
He suggests creating "economic freedom zones" for poverty-stricken areas nearing anarchy, like Detroit. This plan would bring tax rates to 0% in those areas, effectively creating tax havens to encourage economic development in the places that are worst served by our society. One condition for this is that to take advantage of the 0% tax rates, companies have to hire workers who live in that zone.
Who could possibly dislike this? It takes the Democrat ideas of economic stimulus and implements them in a way that actually makes good economic sense, by allowing for more liberty rather than more government direction of the flow of wealth.
Who can deny that this will work? If you believe that tax havens draw in outside investment, then (if you're not a raging hypocrite) you have to believe that this will create a private sector stimulus.
So what do you think? Shouldn't we give poor cities like Detroit the benefits enjoyed by places like Singapore, Switzerland, and Luxembourg?
Comments119
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Comment Flagged as Spam
I actually don't like Alan Keyes' idea at all, for several reasons:
1.) Giving the government more power to discriminate between people in how the tax burden is applied just turns into a direct transfer of wealth from one group to another group. That's very different than a situation where anyone who chooses to move to a particularly dangerous area benefits by not having to pay for government services they're not benefiting from anyways.
2.) The result would likely be employers taking all of the benefit away from the employee, by paying lower wages to people who don't have to pay taxes, such that employees that do or don't pay taxes all end up taking home the same amount anyways.
3.) The ENTIRE POINT of the economic freedom zone idea is to draw businesses into the area to get them hiring again, and to get the local economy moving again. It doesn't work if you deny those tax breaks to the big corporations.
4.) Alan Keyes' idea might make sense if discrimination against blacks was still widespread in the private sector, but it's not. In most cases, the opposite is true.
5.) This idea has already been effectively tried in a more direct form as affirmative action. It hasn't worked. The descendants of slavery don't need more handouts. They need to nurture a culture of enterprise in their family lines.
1.) Giving the government more power to discriminate between people in how the tax burden is applied just turns into a direct transfer of wealth from one group to another group. That's very different than a situation where anyone who chooses to move to a particularly dangerous area benefits by not having to pay for government services they're not benefiting from anyways.
2.) The result would likely be employers taking all of the benefit away from the employee, by paying lower wages to people who don't have to pay taxes, such that employees that do or don't pay taxes all end up taking home the same amount anyways.
3.) The ENTIRE POINT of the economic freedom zone idea is to draw businesses into the area to get them hiring again, and to get the local economy moving again. It doesn't work if you deny those tax breaks to the big corporations.
4.) Alan Keyes' idea might make sense if discrimination against blacks was still widespread in the private sector, but it's not. In most cases, the opposite is true.
5.) This idea has already been effectively tried in a more direct form as affirmative action. It hasn't worked. The descendants of slavery don't need more handouts. They need to nurture a culture of enterprise in their family lines.
company towns... . 
16 tonnes, what do I get? another day older and deeper in debt. :
16 tonnes, what do I get? another day older and deeper in debt. :What do company towns have to do with a reduction of tax rates?
So no taxes, that means no money for infrastructure. So who pays for infrastructure? the company. Who decides the pricing of infrastructure? the company.
Once again: "Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store"
Once again: "Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store"
Company towns enforced their demands through monopoly. Economic freedom zones are not good conditions to form monopolies. Quite the opposite, in fact, as many companies will be rushing in to compete for the tax-free profits.
This is not, in any way, related to the company towns of the 19th century, and they're not coming back.
This is not, in any way, related to the company towns of the 19th century, and they're not coming back.
Creeping and greenfield acquisitions will prevent diversity. Wesfarmers and woolworthes have shown the power of these 
Why, exactly, do you think taking away the tax burden will suddenly allow for that if it's not happening already?
Delawares tax loophole is not hurting Delaware. Takes money that should go to other states though, to the tune of $9.5 Billion. Which is why Pennsylvania is trying to close the Delaware loophole.
In PA there are many companies who work here, yet are incorporated in Delaware. They do not pay any taxes to Pennsylvania, which certainly hurts the local economy by not paying taxes. Marcellus Shell drilling is everywhere here, and the company's doing the drilling are making billions and not paying any taxes. As they are incorporated in Delaware.
If Detroit becomes like Delaware, it will be good for businesses & criminals, who can say it will help the poor people.
www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/bus…
In PA there are many companies who work here, yet are incorporated in Delaware. They do not pay any taxes to Pennsylvania, which certainly hurts the local economy by not paying taxes. Marcellus Shell drilling is everywhere here, and the company's doing the drilling are making billions and not paying any taxes. As they are incorporated in Delaware.
If Detroit becomes like Delaware, it will be good for businesses & criminals, who can say it will help the poor people.
www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/bus…
This is one thing I didn't think about- but now that you mention it- I did notice when I was on a business trip (outside Philly) in February- there were a ton of cars with Delaware plates... it didn't occur to me why.
A geographic based tax cut is the stupidest idea on earth- it creates exactly these kinds of problems.
A statewide tax holiday already fulfills this need, and I've noticed that too many of them anyway do NOT attract that much extra business because it loses it's allure. What am I saving on a $60 purchase? Less than six bucks- and I'm not going to wait to purchase something I need until the holiday because it's not convenient. Sensational ideas like this are meant to attract a crowd of dumb, uneducated, uncritical dopes like our OP who have the analytical abilities of a fruit fly, and proclaim such ideas to be unquestionable without a second thought. Unfortunately for Dumbass Paul, the vast majority of Americans aren't that stupid.
A geographic based tax cut is the stupidest idea on earth- it creates exactly these kinds of problems.
A statewide tax holiday already fulfills this need, and I've noticed that too many of them anyway do NOT attract that much extra business because it loses it's allure. What am I saving on a $60 purchase? Less than six bucks- and I'm not going to wait to purchase something I need until the holiday because it's not convenient. Sensational ideas like this are meant to attract a crowd of dumb, uneducated, uncritical dopes like our OP who have the analytical abilities of a fruit fly, and proclaim such ideas to be unquestionable without a second thought. Unfortunately for Dumbass Paul, the vast majority of Americans aren't that stupid.
If you have these worries about geographic tax cuts, then maybe we should have a nationwide tax cut and benefit everyone?
You already have had one- courtesy of President Barack Obama. It was called the Stimulus, or Economic Recovery Act.
As part of that program we were all given a tax cut through the paycheck, and able to qualify for additional deductions off federal taxes, which you would have noticed (if you even do taxes?) this year most of those finally expired.
As part of that program we were all given a tax cut through the paycheck, and able to qualify for additional deductions off federal taxes, which you would have noticed (if you even do taxes?) this year most of those finally expired.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't seen a single penny of a tax cut during Obama's administration. On a fairly consistent salary of $22,600 +/- $300 over the last 3 years, I've paid these effective tax rates:
2012: 5.6%
2013: 5.8%
2014: 5.5%
So tell me, who did Obama cut taxes for, if not for a poor graduate student?
By the way, Rand Paul's tax plan (flat 17%, with a $35,000 standard deduction for married filing jointly) would have me and my wife paying an effective rate of 3.8%.
Clearly, Rand Paul cares about helping poor graduate students far more than Obama does.
2012: 5.6%
2013: 5.8%
2014: 5.5%
So tell me, who did Obama cut taxes for, if not for a poor graduate student?
By the way, Rand Paul's tax plan (flat 17%, with a $35,000 standard deduction for married filing jointly) would have me and my wife paying an effective rate of 3.8%.
Clearly, Rand Paul cares about helping poor graduate students far more than Obama does.
Yes, you have seen plenty of handouts- you have this attitude that you're somehow entitled to all this free money....
Like I said, the deductions were increased and remained in effect through 2013 tax year; the initial stimulus was in 2010-2011, not in 2012.
If you're making that tiny amount of money, which is about minimum wage- it's NOT President Obama's job to give you more money, it's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to get a higher paying job. If that's all you can do with a graduate degree, then you obviously have no skills anyone wants, terrible job searching strategies, or you are too difficult to work with (I'm guessing it's all three)
I have been making almost three times as much as you and I saw a slight drop in my taxes in 2010 and 2011, and was able to claim a large std deduction until this year. I don't want the federal government cutting things any further, we already have a huge deficit and don't need to blow it out of the stratosphere just to give handouts to lazy people like you.
Like I said, the deductions were increased and remained in effect through 2013 tax year; the initial stimulus was in 2010-2011, not in 2012.
If you're making that tiny amount of money, which is about minimum wage- it's NOT President Obama's job to give you more money, it's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to get a higher paying job. If that's all you can do with a graduate degree, then you obviously have no skills anyone wants, terrible job searching strategies, or you are too difficult to work with (I'm guessing it's all three)
I have been making almost three times as much as you and I saw a slight drop in my taxes in 2010 and 2011, and was able to claim a large std deduction until this year. I don't want the federal government cutting things any further, we already have a huge deficit and don't need to blow it out of the stratosphere just to give handouts to lazy people like you.
So what you're saying is, Obama cut taxes for the rich and told the poor to go fuck ourselves.
As someone who (mostly unwillingly) lives in PA, this pains me.
They have these in other nations (they're called "Free Trade Zones"). They're horrible places to work where the law basically does not apply. Replacing anarchy with corporate anarchy is not an improvement.
Removing taxes does not create "corporate anarchy."
Look at it this way: If you have to remove laws in order to entice businesses, when a business says "sorry, that deal isn't good enough." what law do you remove next?
At what point is it fair to say: Sorry, but if you want to do business in our country you have to do X, Y and Z? Why is the nation always in the wrong here? Why is the onus never on the corporation?
How far are you willing to go? How much are you willing to sacrifice in order to get businesses in the country? Would you sacrifice your 1st Amendment Rights? 2nd? 4th?
At what point is it fair to say: Sorry, but if you want to do business in our country you have to do X, Y and Z? Why is the nation always in the wrong here? Why is the onus never on the corporation?
How far are you willing to go? How much are you willing to sacrifice in order to get businesses in the country? Would you sacrifice your 1st Amendment Rights? 2nd? 4th?
"what law do you remove next? "
You must not know anything about win-win negotiations. They need to perform a cost-benefit analysis to figure to figure out which laws are worth scaling back or repealing and which ones aren't. They don't have to be a complately regulation-free anarchy. They just have to be somewhat more attractive than the other cities.
You must not know anything about win-win negotiations. They need to perform a cost-benefit analysis to figure to figure out which laws are worth scaling back or repealing and which ones aren't. They don't have to be a complately regulation-free anarchy. They just have to be somewhat more attractive than the other cities.
Well once the economic limitations are gone, the only limitations you've got left are civil and social ones. In such a system where the laws of the city/state/nation are removed in order to make businesses more interested in establishing themselves there, the nation with no laws wins, of course all they win is a bunch of businesses who will fuck them until they're lost interest and move on.
It's a race to the bottom and it always has been.
If you're telling me that I need to sacrifice parts of my country to make some businessman happy to keep him from running off to the slave labor markets of China, India or Africa, I'll tell both of you to fuck off. I'm an American and I'll be damned if I'm going to complete with slaves.
It's a race to the bottom and it always has been.
If you're telling me that I need to sacrifice parts of my country to make some businessman happy to keep him from running off to the slave labor markets of China, India or Africa, I'll tell both of you to fuck off. I'm an American and I'll be damned if I'm going to complete with slaves.
So you just want laws and burdens for the sake of burdens? Force people to jump through hoops just to fuck with them? That's your philosophy of government?
Lets say you've removed the tax burden.
Lets say the company says that's not enough for them to do business.
What's next? Your right to free speech? China doesn't have that right and look how good business is there. Do you want business that badly?
Lets say the company says that's not enough for them to do business.
What's next? Your right to free speech? China doesn't have that right and look how good business is there. Do you want business that badly?