Midterms 2018 and beyond

[3opge]

sad videh, evo velikog boosta za babu:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/11/05/heres-how-warrens-plan-would-make-it-nearly-impossible-us-businesses-stash-profits-overseas/?fbclid=IwAR1ViCvK3Vf5y8ssvZ8B4RdMWpBsXW5c_Q3TqwSxplqGBtqy3wrktDsKjfI

 

Edited November 5, 2019 by 3opge

[Roger Sanchez]

re: HOST: Fras se širi

 

Kult će ili dočekati demokratskosocijalističku utopiju s Deda Sandersom na čelu ili će se masovno samoubiti u Sanderstownu. Ne postoji treća mogućnost.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Roger Sanchez

[Anduril]

Cak i ako Sanders ne dobije Vorenovu, ukoliko njegovi kandidati budu dalje napredovali u kongresu, morace neke stvari da se menjaju. Tesko je preuzeti DNC odjednom - i GOPu je trebalo 20 godina da se otarasi centrista. 

[Roger Sanchez]

Just now, Anduril said:

Cak i ako Sanders ne dobije Vorenovu, ukoliko njegovi kandidati budu dalje napredovali u kongresu, morace neke stvari da se menjaju. Tesko je preuzeti DNC odjednom - i GOPu je trebalo 20 godina da se otarasi centrista. 

Dosad je zbilja meo s endorsmentsima u Kongresu, alal mu vera

[Anduril]

Pa nije ni cudo sa sadasnjim sistemom finansiranja kandidata. Malo koji  kongresmen moze da prezivi samo sa sicom srednje nize klase. 

[3opge]

ako i nesto bude neregularno, sredice to superdelegati.

[Roger Sanchez]

8 minutes ago, Anduril said:

Pa nije ni cudo sa sadasnjim sistemom finansiranja kandidata. Malo koji  kongresmen moze da prezivi samo sa sicom srednje nize klase. 

I tako, dok Sanderskult jebe Demokratsku stranku uzduž i poprijeko svojim purizmom i kultom ličnosti, Republikanci su si fino izradili da čak i ako Mesija uniđe u Bijelu kuću, neće imati apostole u Kongresu da provedu njegova čuda.

 

Doduše, možda predsjednik Sanders nadmaši moja očekivanja i nekakvim dedovskim 18. Brumaireom presječe taj gordijski čvor.

 

Jedno je jasno, vrijeme je da DNC shvati barem to da je Sanderskult uzeo Demokratku stranku kao taoca i da će se ili pokoriti zahtjevima kulta ili će mreti. Nema treće. Da ga nominiraju ili piši kući propalo. Ovako ko TRUMP death cult u GOP-u, fino ukinut primaries i pomazati Mesiju.

 

Pa da vidimo taj hod po vodi.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Roger Sanchez

[dragance]

Sve je ovo uvertira za AOC koja ce biti sledeci kandidat za predsednika (a verovatno i prva zena predsednik), a deda i ekipa ce srediti da ona bude top dawg. 

[dragance]

1 minute ago, Roger Sanchez said:

I tako, dok Sanderskult jebe Demokratsku stranku uzduž i poprijeko svojim purizmom i kultom ličnosti, Republikanci su si fino izradili da čak i ako Mesija uniđe u Bijelu kuću, neće imati apostole u Kongresu da provedu njegova čuda.

 

Doduše, možda predsjednik Sanders nadmaši moja očekivanja i nekakvim dedovskim 18. Brumaireom presječe taj gordijski čvor.

 

Jedno je jasno, vrijeme je da DNC shvati baremto da je Sanderskult uzeo Demokratku stranku kao taoca i da će se ili pokoriti zahtjevima kulta ili će mreti. Nema treće. Da ga nominiraju ili piši kući propalo. Ovako ko TRUMP death cult u GOP-u, fino ukinut primaries i pomazati Mesiju.

 

Pa da vidimo taj hod po vodi.

 

Video se hod po vodi kada je DNC lazirao i sve cinio u primaries da baba pobedi dedu, pa smo videli kako je prosla. Bilo koji drugi kandidat da je bio, Trumpo sada ne bi bio predsednik.

[Roger Sanchez]

1 minute ago, dragance said:

Sve je ovo uvertira za AOC koja ce biti sledeci kandidat za predsednika (a verovatno i prva zena predsednik), a deda i ekipa ce srediti da ona bude top dawg. 

Donald Trump Jr vs AOC 2028!

[Anduril]

Pa dobro, ima nekih fenova Sandersa purista, ali verujem da ce vecina ipak glasati za Vorenovu. Mozda ce i ona kao Obama da fejluje sa obecanjima, pa onda jovo nanovo sa nekim novim Trampom ili GWB.

[Roger Sanchez]

2 minutes ago, dragance said:

Video se hod po vodi kada je DNC lazirao i sve cinio u primaries da baba pobedi dedu, pa smo videli kako je prosla. Bilo koji drugi kandidat da je bio, Trumpo sada ne bi bio predsednik.

Čuj, da iko pobijedi ovaj put osim Mesije, jel bi reko da je bilo fair & square a ne zavera™? Ne bi. Nemojmo se lagati.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Roger Sanchez

[3opge]

5 minutes ago, Roger Sanchez said:

I tako, dok Sanderskult jebe Demokratsku stranku uzduž i poprijeko svojim purizmom i kultom ličnosti, Republikanci su si fino izradili da čak i ako Mesija uniđe u Bijelu kuću, neće imati apostole u Kongresu da provedu njegova čuda.

 

Doduše, možda predsjednik Sanders nadmaši moja očekivanja i nekakvim dedovskim 18. Brumaireom presječe taj gordijski čvor.

 

Jedno je jasno, vrijeme je da DNC shvati barem to da je Sanderskult uzeo Demokratku stranku kao taoca i da će se ili pokoriti zahtjevima kulta ili će mreti. Nema treće. Da ga nominiraju ili piši kući propalo. Ovako ko TRUMP death cult u GOP-u, fino ukinut primaries i pomazati Mesiju.

 

Pa da vidimo taj hod po vodi.

mnogo se i dzabe palis, jasno je i budali da baba utrcava umesto Brnija, na zalost nema ni ona puno sansi protiv starog dobrog Dzoa.

Edited November 5, 2019 by 3opge

[Roger Sanchez]

Just now, 3opge said:

mnogo se i dzabe palis, jasno je i budali da baba utrcava umesto Brnija, ne zalost nema ni ona puno sansi protiv starog Dzoa.

Zapravo nema cijela magareća stranka ikakve šanse protiv oduševljenih rasista ako opet ne kandidira crnca.

[3opge]

Here’s how Warren’s plan would make it nearly impossible for U.S. businesses to stash profits overseas

The proposal would upend American multinationals’ growing reliance on tax haven nations by making them ‘pay the difference’

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has proposed instituting a global minimum corporate tax for American companies so there’s no incentive for American multinationals like Google and Apple to list their profits in Ireland or Malta. (Joshua Lott/Getty Images)

By 

Christopher Ingraham 

November 5, 2019 at 9:34 a.m. EST

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) recently released details of her plan to extend Medicare coverage to all Americans, sparking a robust debate among economists, politicians and the general public about the merits and drawbacks of shifting to a national health care system.

One provision that’s received relatively little attention, however, is what the Democratic presidential hopeful calls “a country-by-country minimum tax on foreign earnings.” It’s one of two provisions that could effectively end large, multinational companies’ ability to stash profits in overseas tax havens — a problem that has vexed domestic policymakers for several decades.

Warren’s proposal would bump the corporate tax rate back to 35 percent — recall it was slashed to 21 percent under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — and require U.S.-based multinationals to “pay the difference” between the rate imposed in the country where the profit is booked and the 35 percent rate in the United States. If, for example, a company booked $1 billion in profits in a country with a corporate tax rate of 10 percent, it would have to pay a 25 percent tax on those profits to the U.S. government.

Economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman called for exactly this type of policy in their recent book, “The Triumph of Injustice." They note that international tax havens like Ireland (corporate tax rate: 12.5 percent) and Bermuda (zero) have created a “race to the bottom,” inviting American companies to shift paper profits to those countries to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

Consider the case of large, U.S.-based multinationals like Coca-Cola or Google. In the 1960s, according to data compiled by Saez and Zucman, American multinationals listed about 5 percent of their foreign profits in tax haven nations; by 2016, fully half were.

Strictly speaking, there’s nothing wrong with earning profits overseas; U.S. companies open international divisions if that’s where the growth is. But Saez and Zucman write that many large companies aren’t doing legitimate business in tax haven countries — they’re simply moving profits there on paper.

 

For instance, they write, if corporate profits booked in tax havens reflected real economic activity, you’d expect those corporations to have tangible investments in those countries — capital like property and machines. You’d also expect those companies to have significant payroll expenses in those locations, to pay the workers who are presumably generating all those profits.

But here’s what it looks like when Saez and Zucman add capital and wages to their tax haven chart.

 

Sure enough, back in the 1960s and early ’70s U.S. multinationals listed similar levels of profits, capital investments and wage expenses in tax havens. But in the intervening decades, tax haven profits have exploded, while capital and wage expenditures remained relatively flat. That’s a smoking gun indicator that “nothing of substance” is happening in tax havens, at least as far as the typical American corporation is concerned.

 

Saez and Zucman’s solution is to do what Warren has proposed: Institute a global minimum corporate tax for American companies, so there’s no incentive for multinationals like Google and Apple to list their profits in Ireland or Malta. That makes those companies more likely to list earnings domestically, making them subject to U.S. taxes.

One objection to this proposal is the dreaded threat of corporate inversion: Wouldn’t it simply cause a Google or a Facebook to flee the country and set up headquarters in a tax haven to avoid U.S. taxes as much as possible?

Saez and Zucman believe the threat of inversions is overstated: Fewer than 60 U.S. companies have done so since 1982, according to a tracker maintained by Bloomberg. “Historically, very few U.S. companies have inverted to avoid taxation, even when the U.S. tax rate was significantly higher than the tax rate of other OECD countries, as was the case from the late 1990s to 2018," they write.

 

In part that’s because there are strict laws and regulations governing how a company can claim nationality in a given country. Those rules were recently strengthened under President Barack Obama. There’s also a question of social pressure: Would a quintessentially American company like Coca-Cola want to risk alienating its U.S. customers by moving abroad?

Still, Saez and Zucman propose one additional measure to safeguard against the possibility of inversions (this measure is also part of Warren’s proposal). It would allow the U.S. government to collect taxes on foreign companies proportional to the amount of sales they do in the United States.

If Coca-Cola, for instance, fled to Bermuda but continued to make 50 percent of its sales in the U.S., the government would simply say that 50 percent of its profits are subject to the 35 percent minimum corporate tax. Saez and Zucman write many states already apportion domestic companies’ taxes this way in order to calculate and collect their state-level corporate taxes.

 

“Nothing prevents countries (and not only local governments) from applying this system,” they write. Both the global minimum corporate tax for U.S. companies, as well as apportionment of U.S. profits for foreign companies, are permissible under current international treaties, according to Saez and Zucman. The only thing stopping the United States from implementing such a system is political will.

There is, of course, a longstanding ideological tradition in economics that opposes higher corporate tax rates such as the ones proposed by Warren, Saez and Zucman. That’s based, in part, on the widely held view that corporate taxes (and inversely, corporate tax cuts) trickle down to workers: Corporations pay lower wages when taxes are high, the thinking goes, and they pay more when taxes are low.

That was the guiding philosophy behind the 2017 tax cuts. But Saez and Zucman contend this traditional way of viewing taxes is wrong: They say economists should consider corporate taxes as falling primarily on company owners and investors, rather than workers.

 

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has actually been instructive in this regard: Traditional economic theory would suggest — and the Trump White House predicted — that slashing the corporate tax would cause employee pay to blossom. Though some companies did indeed give highly publicized one-time bonuses to their workers in the wake of the act’s passage, overall wage growth remains on the same trajectory it was at prior to 2018.

If the corporate tax cut is going to trickle down to the average worker, in other words, it hasn’t happened yet. Economists like Saez and Zucman would say, then, that there’s little harm in bringing the rate back up to 35 percent — and in ensuring American companies can’t park their profits overseas to avoid paying their fair share.

 

 

Edited November 5, 2019 by 3opge