Commodore Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 these piecemeal single company anecdotes are stupid, it's statistically insignificant other countries have a competitive advantage of workers willing to accept lower wages we need policies that ensure that is the only advantage they have there should be no tax or regulatory incentive to move overseas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sullen Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 36 minutes ago, Commodore said: Luddites lamenting automation are foolish Nothing foolish in lamenting a massive change leading to heavy job losses while society has no plan to deal with the people axed by it. If we had a plan to deal with the rapid change, then sure, fighting automation is foolish, but at the moment it doesn't seem like anyone has any idea as to how to help those who will be affected by it for the worse. EDIT: And as is to be expected, it doesn't seem like politicians especially care about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said: If you are looking for examples of a direct Trump effect in creating jobs (in Michigan no less), then Dow Chemical opening an innovation center here with 100-200 new jobs is probably a better example. The CEO has been named head of the American Manufacturing Council by Trump (as he was under Obama), so there may be a bit of quid pro quo going on. I would guess that is more fallout from the dissolution of the Dow Corning JV and the hopes that the pending merger with Dupont will go through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 19 minutes ago, Commodore said: these piecemeal single company anecdotes are stupid, it's statistically insignificant other countries have a competitive advantage of workers willing to accept lower wages we need policies that ensure that is the only advantage they have there should be no tax or regulatory incentive to move overseas I think most people would disagree with regulatory, TBH. On the tax front, the Republican blueprint is an interesting step in the right direction if it can get passed (basically amounts to a subtraction method VAT - tax is imposed on a semi-gross receipts basis; deductions for labor, capex and COGS (narrowly defined), nothing else (including interest) - has the effect of locating tax where a multinational sells its products rather than where it locates its entrepreneurs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 43 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: Megyn Kelly apparently going to NBC per NYT. Interesting realignment. She's said before that she's absolutely not a Republican. Her show on Fox has always just been an act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 1 minute ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: I think most people would disagree with regulatory, TBH. On the tax front, the Republican blueprint is an interesting step in the right direction if it can get passed (basically amounts to a subtraction method VAT - tax is imposed on a semi-gross receipts basis; deductions for labor, capex and COGS (narrowly defined), nothing else (including interest) - has the effect of locating tax where a multinational sells its products rather than where it locates its entrepreneurs). My understanding is that Republican Plan is going to allow a full deduction on new investments. The idea is that such a plan will have zero capital taxation for "normal profits" a result derived by Harbenger, I believe, in 1948. The taxation plan, however, is supposed to however tax economic profits. In other words its a cash flow tax. So my question is if that is the plan, then why lower the corporate tax rate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: My understanding is that Republican Plan is going to allow a full deduction on new investments. The idea is that such a plan will have zero capital taxation for "normal profits" a result derived by Harbenger, I believe, in 1948. The taxation plan, however, is supposed to however tax economic profits. In other words its a cash flow tax. So my question is if that is the plan, then why lower the corporate tax rate? There is expensing on some capex. The Trump proposal only allows it for manufacturing. The House Blueprint allows it for everything other than land. The Trump plan isn't specific on this point, but the effect of the House Blueprint I described above is in-fact a destination-based cash-flow tax based on the jurisdiction of consumption, but with a territorial system. (Currently we have a world wide system with foreign source income taxed upon repatriation at full corporate rates). ETA: To answer your question, this proposal would substantially expand the corporate tax base, so rates that were appropriate for a net income based tax with deferral of income earned in local jurisdictions may not be appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 Also, I'm not seeing the VAT analogy. I thought the plan was to basically exempt exports from taxes while not doing anything for imports. I thought under a VAT, you tax imports, and then give subsidies to exporters so that the VAT it is neutral. That is not my understanding with the current Republican plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 18 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: I would guess that is more fallout from the dissolution of the Dow Corning JV and the hopes that the pending merger with Dupont will go through. He explicitly linked the innovation center to Trump at one of the latters 'victory rallies'. But I probably shouldnt say more on this topic. At any rate, R&D jobs are higher income and non-automatable compared to say Ford plant jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerHaHa Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 Anyone see J Assange in the news yesterday? He stated loudly and for the record that the sources of the Democrat emails were NOT the Russians, or any state actor, but a source. He's also strongly hinted in the past that this source was Seth Rich, even prior to Rich's "robbery" gone bad (snicker). I wonder if he'll come forward with actual proof of the sources not being Russia - if it did turn out to be Rich, that combined with Rich's manner and timing of his death will be a pretty interesting day. Anyway, the source of the election leaks has now said it wasn't Russia. This after actual sanctions and PNGs having been used vs Russia. Good job Obama. Where did the hope and change circa 2008 go, with the most secretive and non-transparent administration since...forever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 9 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: There is expensing on some capex. The Trump proposal only allows it for manufacturing. The House Blueprint allows it for everything other than land. The Trump plan isn't specific on this point, but the effect of the House Blueprint I described above is in-fact a destination-based cash-flow tax based on the jurisdiction of consumption, but with a territorial system. (Currently we have a world wide system with foreign source income taxed upon repatriation at full corporate rates). ETA: To answer your question, this proposal would substantially expand the corporate tax base, so rates that were appropriate for a net income based tax with deferral of income earned in local jurisdictions may not be appropriate. But, this is only true because full expensing on new investments is not likely to happen. Is that correct or am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 Just now, SerHaHa said: Anyone see J Assange in the news yesterday? He stated loudly and for the record that the sources of the Democrat emails were NOT the Russians, or any state actor, but a source. He's also strongly hinted in the past that this source was Seth Rich, even prior to Rich's "robbery" gone bad (snicker). I wonder if he'll come forward with actual proof of the sources not being Russia - if it did turn out to be Rich, that combined with Rich's manner and timing of his death will be a pretty interesting day. Anyway, the source of the election leaks has now said it wasn't Russia. This after actual sanctions and PNGs having been used vs Russia. Good job Obama. Where did the hope and change circa 2008 go, with the most secretive and non-transparent administration since...forever? Why would you trust Assange in this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 Just now, OldGimletEye said: But, this only true because full expensing on new investments is not likely to happen. Is that correct or am I missing something? Well, it depends on what can be expensed and what is defined as "new investment". E.g., if only for manufacturing, then IP heavy businesses (which, btw, are really where a lot of the games are played - think the pharma companies and tech companies) do not get this benefit. But in any event, right now, a lot of profit is moved offshore to low or no-tax jurisdictions through income stripping (e.g., royalties, interest), especially through royalties, which erodes the base. Additionally, interest expense is a huge tax shield that does not exist in any meaningful way under either plan. 4 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said: He explicitly linked the innovation center to Trump at one of the latters 'victory rallies'. But I probably shouldnt say more on this topic. At any rate, R&D jobs are higher income and non-automatable compared to say Ford plant jobs. I suspect retconning, but also shouldn't say more. 8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: Also, I'm not seeing the VAT analogy. I thought the plan was to basically exempt exports from taxes while not doing anything for imports. I thought under a VAT, you tax imports, and then give subsidies to exporters so that the VAT it is neutral. That is not my understanding with the current Republican plan. http://www.gao.gov/assets/150/147815.pdf https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/legacy/issues/econtax/files/vat_paper_4_25_2010.pdf Quickly found two explanations not behind a paywall (though one obviously old). Basically you are thinking of an invoice credit method, which is what people are more familiar with. The House Blueprint is a modified subtraction method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 5 hours ago, LongRider said: No, not debatable. Obama put in a huge amount of work into his campaign, and alot of that was behind the scenes, and no matter how much O's charisma there was, he was still black and this was still a mountain to climb. He understood that to run a successful campaign he needed data and he developed ways to find and use good voter data, which both Clinton and Trump did. He understood grass roots and how to use them and how to use volunteers. As for seeing the 2012 as magical, believe me, I do not as being as I was a volunteer on his campaign in swing state I can tell you there was no magic involved, just huge amounts of hard work. Birtherism and J. Wright weren't scandals, they were manufactured bullshit against Obama. If birtherism was a scandal, then it is one for your boy Trump. Palin changed the game for McCain and not in a good way. Yes, very debatable. Hard work doesnt equate that you are amazing. I'm sure every campaign people are working hard. What, you think other campaigns people are just playing video games and smoking pot but Obama's team was an exception of hard work? That's sounds like a silly claim. Fine, if you say Obama had no scandals. It's just as easy to proclaim Trump had no scandals. Just bullshit against him. Yes Palin changed the game in a good way for Obama. Also Im not convinced how much him being black actually hurt him. My guess is that there were people that were not going to vote for him no matter what just because he was black. And there were also people that were going to vote for him no matter what just because he was black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: Fine, if you say Obama had no scandals. It's just as easy to proclaim Trump had no scandals. Just bullshit against him. https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-a-fahrenthold/?utm_term=.a0a8922fb0bd http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-enduring-scandal-of-trump-university http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/donald-trump-scandals/474726/ 2 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: Also Im not convinced how much him being black actually hurt him. My guess is that there were people that were not going to vote for him no matter what just because he was black. And there were also people that were going to vote for him no matter what just because he was black. Speaking of silly claims ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 1 minute ago, Week said: https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-a-fahrenthold/?utm_term=.a0a8922fb0bd http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-enduring-scandal-of-trump-university http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/donald-trump-scandals/474726/ Speaking of silly claims ... Yes record turnout of minority voters had nothing at all to do with Obama being black, nothing at all. What a silly claim. It's all because of a brilliantly ran campaign. It was conducted so amazingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 9 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: Yes record turnout of minority voters had nothing at all to do with Obama being black, nothing at all. What a silly claim. It's all because of a brilliantly ran campaign. It was conducted so amazingly. You're right that minority voters turned out in record numbers, but that does nothing to disprove the brilliance of his campaign. It's at least in part a testament to it. His was really the blueprint of the modern campaign in many ways. It was the first to use Social Media and extensive use of email advertising. The electronic side of Trump's campaign (and many others I'm sure) modeled itself from the Obama blueprint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Kilmore Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: It wasn't just Michigan, it was the entire Midwest. I live in Minnesota, and was an intern on Obama's 2008 campaign and an on-loan staffer on his 2012 campaign and there was an active effort to talk to every likely voter on the phone and in person several times. I didn't get a single phone call or canvasser from the Clinton campaign here in MN this cycle. Yep. I get calls all the time from various office holders. Nothing from the Clinton campaign. ETA: Minnesotan too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 1 hour ago, DunderMifflin said: Fine, if you say Obama had no scandals. It's just as easy to proclaim Trump had no scandals. Just bullshit against him. I mean, you can proclaim that, and yes, it's easy, but that won't stop you looking rather silly if you do. Obama faced some untrue allegations that were discredited but believed anyway by those looking for a reason to justify their dislike. Trump faced far more numerous examples of shameful and disreputable things that he had in fact said and done that caused genuine public outrage. By definition, the former is bullshit, the latter is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 50 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said: Yep. I get calls all the time from various office holders. Nothing from the Clinton campaign. ETA: Minnesotan too. Yeah I found it really strange that there was next to no Clinton campaign presence anywhere in the Twin Cities. It's usually a very politically active area. I guess not having any other state wide races really hurt the DFL's outreach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.