|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
While digging through the latest Trump transcript, I found this gem of an analysis of the ME:
for instance, when Putin came out and he wanted to bomb the hell out of ISIS, we had people standing on the stage, we don’t want that, we want. . . . Let me tell you something. If we have somebody else dropping bombs that cost a half a million dollars a piece on the top — if we have somebody helping us, that’s not so bad. You understand that. That’s not so bad. You understand that. That’s not so bad. But I had people that I’m running against saying, like, that was a terrible thing. It’s not a terrible thing. We have a situation in Libya where a friend of mine is just saying, so, we had Gaddafi, he killed the terrorists, he ran his place. Not a good man. Same thing you could say with Iraq, with Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was a plus-10 at killing terrorists, that’s one thing. If our presidents would have gone away and gone to the beach, the Middle East would be a far better place than it is right now. I don’t say it would be run by nice people, but you know, it would be a far better place. The mistakes we’ve made in the Middle East are so astronomical. Now here’s the thing: ISIS is now. . . . A friend of mine who’s very much involved in the energy business, ISIS is controlling the oil now in Libya. How did we let that happen? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/02/transcript-donald-trump-interview-with-bob-woodward-and-robert-costa/
|
I'm actually impressed by this analysis. It's not like it's very deep or something. But it is true. Middle East was a (excluding Israel) more or less stable region, but western intervention destroyed the status quo. Saying this as a Republican candidate is impressing in my eyes.
|
Like so many Americans approaching retirement, Virginia Republican Rep. Scott Rigell dreams about spending a little more time on the water.
"I have a little rowboat called Miss Nelly. She's 13 ft. long and there's not a motor on it. There's no radio on it. And I'm so looking forward to being on that rowboat," says Rigell.
Rigell is retiring after just six years in Congress. He was one of the 87 Republicans who rode the "tea party" wave to a pivotal GOP takeover of the House.
At the end of this Congress, more than one-third of that class will be gone from the U.S. House.
Like many of those freshman lawmakers, Rigell had never held any public office before he arrived in Washington. Before he took office, Rigell was a car salesman.
He ran as an "outsider" in a year when voters were tired of political insiders.
As it turns out, some people who never harbored ambitions to be career politicians don't love being politicians.
"I think, for many of us in my class, it truly wasn't on the bucket list of life to be here. It wasn't as if I was a junior in high school saying, 'I want to be a member of Congress,'" Rigell says.
Twenty one members of his class have already left, although two of them now serve in the Senate: Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado and Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina. Three more House Republicans are running for the Senate this year.
Another eight members of the class are retiring. The retiring lawmakers include a farmer, a decorated Army veteran and a construction company owner.
Source
|
On April 03 2016 20:20 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 05:41 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 03 2016 03:58 KwarK wrote:
That raises another important point that I touched on with estate taxes. There has been a movement in the last decade of Republican governors coming in promising to lower taxes and make up the difference with a bigger pie, getting huge deficits when the promised pie does not appear and then increasing stealth taxes that hit the poor the hardest, like flat sales tax increases.
Kasich is a notable example of this, replacing progressive taxes on income with flat taxes on consumption which is beyond regressive, if you earn money and invest it to get more money that's tax free, if you earn money and need to buy bread, that's taxed.
Pardon the hyperbole but there is a war happening by stealth. These things don't seem like much taken in isolation but in the last two decades the tax base has been shifting further and further from the rich. And while each change is unlikely to be the straw that breaks the camels back their cumulative effect will matter. In regards to taxation, I am theoretically on the side of simplifying the law code and ensuring it is set up to be an efficient method of revenue generation for the government, as opposed to a means of wealth re-distribution and ensuring the welfare of the poor. Taxation, while a popular policy tool, is, really, an inefficient method of ensuring the above: better taxation be aimed at generating the revenue to fund progressive programs that actually can have an impact on reducing both the opportunity gap and abysmal social mobility we have in this country. Creating increasingly more progressive tax codes does not generate more revenue, or necessarily achieve the basic aim of equalizing incomes. The more complex the law code, the easier it is for those with means and resources (see, the wealthiest) to exploit the code and the loopholes embedded within, or to simply leave the country for greener pastures. And indeed, the best "taxes" for income generation tend to be regressive in nature. That is not to say that we can't build a progressive tax system, only that it isn't necessarily a overly-simplistic solution, like say raising nominal taxation on the rich (which I completely agree is needed at this time [or at least to let the Bush tax cuts expire entirely]). The net effect of such raises are relatively minor in terms of revenue (partially offset by current exemptions and numerous accounting tricks) and a drop in the bucket in terms of creating either a more equitable society. One cannot consistently raise taxes on the rich and expect anything: consider, after all, the net effect of Hollande's (defunct) 75% marginal tax rate on the wealthy. Now for specific recommendations for the United States: some of the tax proposals I would tender include the elimination of the corporate income tax (an issue Sanders is completely opposed to me on), and offsetting the budget deficit generated with a normalization of capital gains an dividends as income. One of the issues facing the United States is a high rate of corporate inversion (companies re-incorporating abroad to diminish tax burdens), in part due to the US having the highest nominal corporate income tax in the West. Doing the above has multiple purposes: addresses the corporate inversion issue, provides a strong incentive for more companies and corporations to base themselves in the United States (and generating jobs, economic activity, and ultimately income taxes), and shifts the burden of taxation away from the corporation as a whole (which grants corporations greater leeway in self-investing/expanding or raising wages/benefits, as post-tax profit was what matters [likely improving the working conditions for most employees]) while shifting the tax burden onto the wealthy investors and individuals who otherwise benefit from special dividend/capital gain rules. The net result of this would be a vastly simplified code, which reduces the loopholes that one can squirrel away income, improves the US economy, and should positively affect the wages of many US workers (and ultimately generate more tax revenue than an unreliable corporate income tax). There are a number of similar business tax reforms that go with this, but this is the crux of my business tax reform proposal. Beyond this, there's the elimination of a number of tax breaks, some of which incredibly popular (mortgage interest rate deductions etc.), the principle of which I've already covered, the creation of a few new taxes (VAT and Cap&Trade most notably) as well as a minor/moderate raise in income tax across all brackets. This is of course all highly unpopular, but nonetheless the policy recommendations I would posit. EDIT: My general problem with the discussion of estate (and gift) taxes, is that it comprises an enormously minuscule portion of US tax revenue (roughly ~0.6-0.7% total). It's pretty much meaningless in terms of revenue generation, and even repealing Bush tax cuts on it doesn't increase it by any substantial amount. We'd probably be better off economically if we ended up repealing it altogether, actually (I've not done enough research on the topic to convincingly state this, however), and save on the hassle it generates for both the government and individuals, but it's a highly politicized tax, I am aware. But again, it's pretty much meaningless. What exactly is your goal? VAT and income tax increases (also) at the lower brackets will be devastating with the current american income and wealth inequality. The poor are already hurting (even though they pay 0 income tax), so adding on their burden that they can't deal with will help whom?
The goal of tax increases is to reinvest in the social safety net and reform welfare programs which, currently, are poorly designed (and more designed to "discipline" than help the poor), and overall aim to reduce the "cost of living". Provide, for instance, universal healthcare efficiently, and you reduce the burden on the poor despite taxes (which is the rationale behind Sander's single payer system). Besides that, income tax increases do not really affect the lowest brackets, which currently have a "negative" income tax in the US system.
Your proposal of eliminating corporate income taxes also will not have the desired outcome. Corporations are currently in the grand scheme of things not investing, as we are so close to deflation, and (global) demand is still not recovered. Even though investing would already decrease their tax liability and if taxation was an actual issue it would promote this beaviour, not hording cash as corporations are doing now.
Considering the rate of corporate inversion from the US, and major companies like Pfizer planning on merging (and being liquidated by) with an Irish corporation in order to avoid US tax burdens, the issue of corporate income tax reform is a major issue (which of course can't be resolved at the moment due to gridlock). The US has the unique policy of taxing income regardless of where it's from (coupled with the highest marginal corporate income tax rate of developed countries): so a corporation based in the US, it's paying, say, 35% on all profits, whereas a company based in say Canada is paying 35% on profits from the US, 15% from Canada, and nothing from the Caymans. In that context, it makes perfect sense for major companies to invert and rebase them selves overseas with mergers to improve post-tax profits for their shareholders.
The place where a corporation has its name plague on a mail box has relatively little bearing on where they perform their economic activity, returning that plague (and 2 boxes full of filings and general paperwork) from Ireland will not make them hire more people in the US, there is 0 connection or mechanism there that would do that.
It does when the US corporate tax rate is significantly higher than other developed countries, and promotes conducting the economic activity abroad as opposed to within the United States. If they were previously based in the US, then you are correct, since the corporate tax for all profits would be the same due to antiquated rules: however, once inverted, they have alternate options with significantly less tax burden to base their operations in.
It ultimately does affect the number of jobs within the United States and, even without, affects the overall wage levels of employees positively (due to the moving the burden onto the shareholders themselves).
This is of course a drastic approach to resolving the corporate inversion and corporate income tax problem we currently face. The most likely solution to the issue would be to begin differentiating where profits come from (like most countries) for tax purposes, and to lower the marginal tax rate a fair amount.
As for the taxation system in itself, the US has had a progressive income tax (with higher marginal taxation rate, especially for higher income) historically, but nowadays it is almost irrelevant. The problem is that richest do not pay their taxes, or at least not as they should, so the taxation does not play its role in preventing the increasing inequalities (due to rather complex matter, with financial assets being less taxed than other type of capital and fiscal heaven being everywhere). In this regard, most of Tolkien's point of view is basically false : there are tons on data proving that a progressive system, and a better welfare does indeed not only reduce poverty but also inequalities.
In what manner? A progressive taxation system, or a progressive welfare and social safety net? In terms of net revenue generation, progressive taxes, besides income taxes, are less efficient at generating revenue (due to previously discussed loopholes and exemptions the rich can readily afford to plan around and reduce their tax burden), and regressive taxes (VATs and the like) are common among nations with highly progressive welfare systems in order to effectively pay for such programs as well-funded social safety nets and universal healthcare.
I am not arguing that the tax system SHOULD be regressive by nature (a healthy tax system in developed nations currently should look progressive), merely that it shouldn't be utilized primarily as a means of equalizing wealth inequality, because tax policy aiming to do so with that as it's primary objective, as opposed to revenue generation, is generally ineffective. Wealth inequality can be much more efficiently addressed expenditure-side of federal budgets, not revenue-side.
|
The Confederacy is rising again, this time using perhaps the final weapon in its arsenal: calendars.
Mississippi governor Phil Bryant recently proclaimed April to be Confederate Heritage Month, adding an official flourish to a longstanding tradition in his state and several others. April, he wrote in the proclamation, is “the month in which the Confederate States began and ended a four-year struggle”.
Bryant’s proclamation does not mention the central cause of the struggle – slavery – but instead announces the month as a chance to “gain insight from our mistakes and successes” and to “earnestly strive to understand and appreciate our heritage and our opportunities which lie before us”. It also sets aside 25 April as “Confederate Memorial Day”.
The proclamation set off an outcry around the state. Bryant may have expected less-than-universal acceptance of his declaration: he did not issue it on the official Mississippi state website, alongside other proclamations. Instead it appeared without notice on the site of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
The SCV is a group dedicated to preserving the vestiges of southern rebellion – including the Mississippi state flag, which is the last in the nation to feature a version of the Confederate battle flag.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) leaders in Mississippi reacted by proposing a civil war remembrance of their own: Union Army Heritage Month.
“These white and black Mississippi patriots fought for the continuation of the United States of America as one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all,” Derrick Johnson, president of Mississippi’s NAACP, wrote to the Clarion-Ledger.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i wouldn't go so far as to 'eliminate corporate tax'. 20-28% is a decent range. it's just that the registration of corporations as a rule does not impose much of a cost, especially for new business registrations and new entities.
one of the stronger results of the empirical trade literature is that globalization has increased competitive pressure upon corporations. this could explain why tax differentials are taken more seriously now than ever before.
i'd be looking at developing more leverage in this area, but given the depth of integration of the tax issue in trade agreements it has to be a full afterburner type of issue to gain much traction.
|
merely that it shouldn't be utilized primarily as a means of equalizing wealth inequality, because tax policy aiming to do so with that as it's primary objective, as opposed to revenue generation, is generally ineffective
Your point is that a non progressive is better at generating revenue and thus should be used to support a more efficient welfare ? If not then I don't really understand : if the goal is to reduce inequalities, then why is it that the fact that they are less efficient at generating revenue is relevant ?
A progressive taxation system is very efficient in itself in regards to inequalities, outside of its use (in welfare or through a social safety net). Most countries combine both added value taxes and progressive income tax, for different purposes (generate state income or reduce inequalities).
The effect of the progressivity of the taxation on inequalities differ in function of the policies that the country adopt or in function of the capacity of the country to actually enforce and fight loopholes and such, and thus most empirical datas we have suggest that the effect of progressive taxation in under developped countries is weaker, but that's certainly not the case for the US (pretty strong country). In certain countries, a progressive tax system can even reduce tax evasion, so the relationship between progressivity and taxation is a little more complex than what we all commonly think.
There are ton of works on that subject, here is one :
The second stage results presented in Panel A indicate that progressivity has a statistically significant negative effect on reported income inequality. For example, a one percentage point increase in the top statutory PIT [measure for the progressivity of the income tax) rate reduces the GINI by 0.95 points [GINI is a measure of inequalities), ceteris paribus.
Another important finding in Table 2 is that changes in ARP-bottom has a smaller impact on income inequality compared to changes in ARP-top, i.e., increasing progressivity at the top of the income scale is a more effective method of reducing inequality in observed income.
We acknowledge that our IV estimates reflect the local average treatment effect (LATE) of the progressivity on observed income inequality, and that the inequality response may not be same for every country, i.e., there is an underlying distribution of δ's that may vary with certain country characteristics. For example, as we show in subsequent sections,the inequality response is estimated to be higher in absolute value in countries with more developed democratic and legal institutions.
http://ftp.iza.org/dp6910.pdf
As for which is more efficient, a non progressive taxation and a good welfare or a progressive taxation and a less efficient welfare (because it has less revenue) then to be fair I don't know (that's an immensely complicated topic from my point of view), but the US has none of those two anyway.
It's clear that, in the modern world, with the absurd existence of some fiscal heaven (like that god damn luxemburg), old solution like increasing taxation have less effect : it does not mean that they don't work, but rather that they should be supported with other kind of solutions.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
For months, the two leading Republican candidates have tried to prove they're tough on Muslims. Donald Trump famously introduced the idea of a temporary ban on Muslim immigration, and then, last month, the businessman-turned-politician said he believes "Islam hates us." Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has often insisted President Obama should use the words "radical Islamic terrorism" and, last week, Cruz issued a statement that called for patrolling Muslim neighborhoods.
This political rhetoric is horrifying many Muslims, but it's also had unintended side effects — encouraging them to get out to vote and work with other minority communities.
Muslims make up just one percent of the U.S. population, but, in the 1990s into the early 2000s, they were often loyal Republicans. But some Muslims now say they don't see a place for them in the current party.
"This election's coming across as a pick-your-poison election," said Minhaj Husain, who lives in suburban Waukesha County — solidly Republican terrain just outside of Milwaukee. Husain says, in his view, the Republican Party has deteriorated in recent years.
"I used to be a big Ron Paul supporter, big libertarian," said Husain, but then he adds — there's no room for someone like Paul in the current Republican party.
So, this cycle he intends to vote for Bernie Sanders.
His wife Asma Sukhera, 36, said she's appalled, not just by what some GOP candidates are saying, but, by how many fellow Americans seem to agree with them.
"More people are latching on to this ideology of separatism, banning Muslims ... building a wall, these ideas are so anti-American, and so against everything that we grew up believing in," she said.
Sukhera is not alone. That sense of disbelief is common among Muslims in the Milwaukee area. (Voters in Wisconsin head to the polls Tuesday for the state's primary election).
Source
|
Where are the nameplates?
Is Bernie captain america?
|
I think it's hilarious that Republicans have never stopped to wonder why Muslims tend to vote for them.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 04 2016 02:40 IgnE wrote:Where are the nameplates? Is Bernie captain america?
here's the best i can do
hillary fighting bernie in the background
robo rubio, jeb, kasich
canadian ted cruz
trump carson christie. dont know who that rightmost guy is
|
Why is Jeb a dead Jedi knight?
|
Hillary pulled some jive shit (actual sources included)
http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-wins-nevada-democratic-caucus/
It's obvious at this point that you are an anthropomorphic reptilian who walks among us and you support Hillary because she is already your leader.
=^_^=
P.S.
From your article "At the polling place, hillary supporters were handing out bottles of water. Trump and Bernie are always angry."
That is a persuasive argument.
|
#panamapapers
Happy digging.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 04 2016 03:14 Jormundr wrote:Hillary pulled some jive shit (actual sources included) http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-wins-nevada-democratic-caucus/It's obvious at this point that you are an anthropomorphic reptilian who walks among us and you support Hillary because she is already your leader. =^_^= P.S. From your article "At the polling place, hillary supporters were handing out bottles of water. Trump and Bernie are always angry." That is a persuasive argument.
this is some low quality propaganda. you are taking a sanders delegate at her word despite direct evidence contradictory to her claims.
|
On April 04 2016 03:35 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 03:14 Jormundr wrote:Hillary pulled some jive shit (actual sources included) http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-wins-nevada-democratic-caucus/It's obvious at this point that you are an anthropomorphic reptilian who walks among us and you support Hillary because she is already your leader. =^_^= P.S. From your article "At the polling place, hillary supporters were handing out bottles of water. Trump and Bernie are always angry." That is a persuasive argument. this is some low quality propaganda. you are taking a sanders delegate at her word despite direct evidence contradictory to her claims.
Where's that evidence?
|
So how many of our politicians will be revealed in the Panama papers? Start placing your bets. I say 3-4.
|
On April 04 2016 03:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So how many of our politicians will be revealed in the Panama papers? Start placing your bets. I say 3-4.
counting congress?
Dozens atleast
I dont get the big deal tho, its hardly a secret that rich people use offshore accounts to avoid taxes.
|
This offshore company is mostly connected to the UK (the had some ex-tories listed) but it might not be one that's popular with people from the US but it does have a representative in the US, so I'll wager 5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oNS8czt.jpg)
