US Politics- Enemy at the Gaetz

[Fragile Bird]

2 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Trying to read the tea leaves from corporate America on the infrastructure bill. On the one hand, you'd think some companies would be in support, since that 3 trillion is going back into the economy, and someone will be buying some product (lets say paint, for a concrete example). On the other hand, the corresponding hike in corporate taxes would make some of them leery.

So it was good to see Dimon, and everyone's least favorite Lex Luthor, Bezos come out in favor of the plan. They are also somewhat supportive of a hike in corporate taxes (not too high).

I saw an interesting explanation of Jeff Bezos’ support this morning on CNBC. First of all, Bezos gets paid in a “tax efficient” manner, in other words, under favorable tax rules meant to “encourage” top employees. Stock options. He pays virtually no tax, so unless those generous provisions of the tax code are changed, he’s not worried about personal taxes going up. I’m sure @Mlle. Zabzie could give a succinct explanation of the tax provisions., including the corporate ones I’m about to mention.

Amazon pays very little (zero?) in corporate taxes because of similarly generous provisions in the US tax code, meant to encourage corporate spending. Amazon is expanding, and spending huge amounts of money every year, which, I think, they can write off against income immediately (“on an accelerated basis”) instead of, say, over a ten year period. 25% or 28% of nothing is the same amount of tax as 19% of nothing.

The US is a very unusual country in the world in that it taxes the overseas earnings of citizens and corporations. A 5% tax was put on overseas income of US corporations a few years ago, I think under Trump but it may have been earlier. Apparently there is a suggestion that tax would be doubled to 10% under the Biden plan, which would really hit a company like Amazon. Corporations argue it’s an unfair tax, because other countries don’t have a 5% tax on the overseas earnings of their companies because they don’t tax the foreign earnings of their corporations in the first place, and doubling the tax to 10% would really be grossly unfair. I heard that the estimated amount of money this tax would bring in over a ten year period is substantially more than the tax revenues that either a 25% or a 28% corporate tax would bring in.

So Bezos said, sure, increase corporate taxes, they don’t pay any anyway. But behind the scenes I gather there’s furious lobbying against doubling the foreign earnings tax.

As for the amount of money to be spent on infrastructure, the argument against a big spend is that it means there will be less money in the financial system for private corporations. I hadn’t thought about the spending in those terms before, and perhaps someone else can explain the concept better than I can.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

31 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Trying to read the tea leaves from corporate America on the infrastructure bill. On the one hand, you'd think some companies would be in support, since that 3 trillion is going back into the economy, and someone will be buying more of some product (lets say paint, for a concrete example), which is good for industry. On the other hand, the corresponding hike in corporate taxes would make some of them leery.

So it was good to see Dimon, and everyone's least favorite Lex Luthor, Bezos come out in favor of the plan. They are also somewhat supportive of a hike in corporate taxes (not too high).

While Republicans are pounding their desks over the new proposed taxes, I haven’t heard many corporate  elites come out against them, with many supporting them. The new rates will still be lower than the pre-Trump rates (though they should go up to higher than those rates, but that’s a different topic) and the rich already got their free day at the casino. Corporate and individual rates could go up a ton and they’d still be way in the black.

[IheartIheartTesla]

I'm not an expert in any of this, but there is absolutely nothing that can prevent Democrats from adding some provision to 'close the loophole in the corporate tax code' so Amazon has to pay. I mean, Sanders has been beating the drum against Amazon for a while now, and I'm sure he will have no small part in drafting the bill.

Of course, I know about the overseas income taxation, but I thought companies had ways to get over that too.

[Zorral]

10 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

As for the amount of money to be spent on infrastructure, the argument against a big spend is that it means there will be less money in the financial system for private corporations. I hadn’t thought about the spending in those terms before, and perhaps someone else can explain the concept better than I can.

This is on topic, at least historically in terms of finance (such as banking), property and infrastructure -- have you studied / read Walter Bagehot (1826-1877), who has been called a progenitor of libertarian economy -- totally in favor of small government as possible and all hands off business operations and property.   Hailed in his own time, and still influential in ours, particularly in England, as one of the greatest minds of banking, finance and economy.  He wanted a career in literature, and / or politics.  But ended up studying law, which was intolerable, so he dropped back to the fail safe of the family's banking business.

Me being me, it's impossible to forget, that no matter how much poetry he could memorize on one or two readings alone, he could never learn to add and subtract.  So naturally the family business put him in charge of the bank. Fortunately it seems he spent his working hours -- and he was an alcoholic for work -- writing, rather than, well, banking.  Fortunately the family was already prosperous for generations, and they could afford that.

He never did get a political position, unlike Disraeli.

The reason for all this is I've been thinking about him a lot in connection with the then railroad expansion, the financial shenanigans around that in both Britain and the US, and his attitudes about oversight and government bond issues. Also the arguments then there and here (lordessa! see Andrew Jackson whose knowledge of anything at this level was even less than mine!) between gold/silver and paper currency, and the export of specie to France and other countries with a higher rate of valuation than Britain's, when the wars with Napoleon concluded finally.

Now we're groping at an economy that was already transforming via Big Tech, and cyber currency, but which has been even more accelerated due to the pandemic.  Anyway, as you see, my thinking here is quite a mess.  Last night I just read Theodore Roosevelt (then Vice President) explaining to his friend Owen Wister (author among much else, The Virginian and grandson of the largest slaveowner in the Low Countries, Pierce Butler -- and the great actor, Fanny Kemble!), why Wister's was entirely wrong in how he thought of the greenback was a disaster.  Issued during the War, the greenback was the first national currency, as so much of the nation's wealth was embodied in human beings prior, a national currency wasn't possible.  TR carefully explained how the greenback was essential to the war effort, and that without it, the Union couldn't have held together and ultimately won the war.

 

 

[Paladin of Ice]

16 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

As an example.

US Senator claiming that the country with the largest number of prisoners per capita isn't imprisoning enough people.

A lot of the time I try to be careful about actually calling someone a fascist. Fascist like, sure, saying that something comes from the fascist playbook, certainly, but it’s relatively rare that I say a specific person is a fascist.

Cotton would have been perfectly at home goose stepping around Germany in the 30s. This is the same guy whose reaction to Times reporters exposing Bush era secrets was to say that they should be prosecuted under the Espionage Act, said that the only problem with torture at Guantanamo Bay was that the prison had too many empty beds, advocated for military occupation of cities in response to the George Floyd protests, (including naming specific, highly decorated units that he wanted to use, because apparently he spends a lot of time dreaming about the idea of the 101st Airborne parachuting into U.S cities) and was probably the biggest voice pushing for war with Iran.

Hell, he also tried to undercut Obama on Iran before the nuclear deal was even finalized, basically flat out saying in an open letter that Iran shouldn’t bother signing it because if the next president was a Republican they’d just tear it up anyway.

As far as I’m concerned, Cotton is one of those nigh-mythical “smart fascists.” And he’s still quite young for a senator, so he’ll be causing problems for years to come, unless something happens and he unexpectedly gets the boot.

[DMC]

So I had a random thought/hypothetical this morning that I just couldn't stop thinking about, figured I'd seek help (albeit probably not the right kind).  The hypothetical - and I'm not interested at all in arguing how possible it is etc. - if Kamala Harris is the nominee in 2024, who is her running mate?

My first thought is it's gotta be a male.  And conventional wisdom would say a white male.  And this is where it got..interesting for me.  I cannot come up with a white male candidate that isn't, well, a boring white male candidate.  First I considered incumbent governors, and nope.  Boring or worse (e.g. Northam, Pritzker).  Andy Beshear is kinda interesting, but I think you need a little more experience than that.  Then I turned to the Senate, and it's arguably any worse.  Other than Ossoff (who is a no for me), every white guy in the upper chamber would be as boring a VP candidate as Tim Kaine - including Tim Kaine.  Even the House, I came up with basically bupkis.

Other than Pete (bleh), there ain't much from the Cabinet either.  It really is a sad state of affairs for my people (as in white males).  I guess this is what happens when most of them go off to make their own fascist party.  There is, of course, Fetterman, but I don't that'd mesh well as a ticket either.  So, in terms of my white male choices, I'm going Ed Markey from the Senate and Andy Levin from the House.  Markey may be boring and very old, but he'd appease the leftists.  Levin is a good blue collar type guy (he's obviously not actually blue collar) for the midwest that I think would also make a good attack dog.  Sherrod Brown is an obvious choice here too, but I just can't see that raspy voice running for national office.

My dream choice?  Julian Castro.  Since this is my hypothetical, I'm imagining he defeats Abbott next year for Texas governor.  That'd be a pretty awesome ticket.  My female choice?  Tammy Baldwin.  

Anyway, thoughts?  Choices?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

What about Bernie?

You can't get any whiter, or more experienced.

 

I mean, you can draft somebody from the past like O'Malley. He is not that old. I am not sure what your issue is with Murphy (NJ Governor). He'd make a perfectly fine candidate. If you want more excitement, well, there's always Beto for you.

That's the ones that came to my mind with your white male specifications.

[Fez]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Anyway, thoughts?  Choices?

Buttigieg is the really obvious choice, especially if he keeps being the most media-available cabinet member throughout this term. In fact, if Biden weren't able to make an endorsement, I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up the nominee instead of Harris.

Assuming it is Harris though, and besides Buttigieg, If the concern isn't the left but rather the suburban whites that Biden peeled away, an interesting option would be someone like John Bel Edwards. But it's real hard to see left be okay with him, unless the next 3 years are such a bonanza of policy that they love Harris by the end of it.

I could also see someone get pulled from the House, a Jamie Raskin- or Adam Schiff-type. Someone who's got a bit of a national profile.

[Zorral]

Talk about NYers between Scylla and Charybdis:

"Andrew Giuliani: I Plan to Run Against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2022"

https://www.thedailybeast.com/andrew-giuliani-says-he-plans-to-run-against-new-york-governor-andrew-cuomo-in-2022

Quote

 

Andrew Giuliani, a former White House aide to Donald Trump and son of the president’s disgraced personal lawyer, is “heavily considering” a bid to unseat New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in 2022, The Washington Examiner reports. “Outside of anybody named Trump, I think I have the best chance to win and take the state back,” he said. “I plan to run.” Giuliani, 35, is the son of ex-mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani and his second wife, Donna Hanover. And while the younger Giuliani has no experience in elected office, he told the Examiner that he thinks he’s “the right candidate.” The Newsmax contributor allegedly already has the support of the MAGA movement, former Trump advisers, and Trump himself, who he served as a sports liaison.

Giuliani plans on officially announcing his campaign after meeting with New York’s Republican Party and other candidates. ...

 

The only person who has a less chance of election than Cuomo has of re-election.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sherrod Brown is an obvious choice here too, but I just can't see that raspy voice running for national office.

I see the raspy voice as an asset!

 

Just now, A Horse Named Stranger said:

What about Bernie?

You can't get any whiter, or more experienced.

 

It's really something, and I'm not trying to attack you here, that in 2021 you can say someone can't get any whiter than a Jewish son of Polish immigrants. Imagine telling his parents that in the 40s!

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Tbh, I hadn't thought about Sander being Jewish, when I made that joke. Maybe I would've shied away from it. But Bernie is undeniably an old white man, and he has been in politics for ages, and he has quite an enthusiastic base.  Ok, DMC is not part of his base, and would probably make him scream at a blank wall for two hours, if he ever were seriously considered as running mate in '24.

[Maithanet]

In a hypothetical where Biden doesn't seek the nomination for health reasons but is still relatively popular, then I think that Harris would have to go with a moderate white man.  Harris is going to be more vulnerable to the "crazy leftist" attack line because she's a woman of color.  IMO even Buttigieg might be too far to the left and definitely no one further than that.  Governors would be good choices - Tom Wolf or Bel Edwards or Tony Evers (though he'll be 73 by then). 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

What about Bernie?

You can't get any whiter, or more experienced.

 

I mean, you can draft somebody from the past like O'Malley. He is not that old. I am not sure what your issue is with Murphy (NJ Governor).

Bernie will turn 83 in 2024.  I didn't really consider him.  O'Malley is pretty much the epitome of boring white guy.  Murphy too, plus I don't think the left will dig a guy that spent a quarter century at Goldman Sachs with Hank Paulson and Gary Cohn.  Your "drafting somebody from the past" statement did make me think of someone - Howard Dean.  Redeem the Scream!

16 minutes ago, Fez said:

I could also see someone get pulled from the House, a Jamie Raskin- or Adam Schiff-type. Someone who's got a bit of a national profile.

Raskin is pretty meh for me and I'm not a fan of Schiff - at least not for high office.  I think he'd be quite off-putting for a lot of voters.  (Not to mention under this scenario he couldn't run as a Californian.)

As for your notion that Buttigieg would be the presumptive running mate, I can't really disagree with that.  Although I disagree with the notion that he'd be able to defeat Harris in the primary.  I think he has real weaknesses in the authenticity department and broad appeal among the Democratic coalition.  Plus I don't think he adds anything in terms of Independents/swing voters.

I will grant, though, that I was kind of not considering him because he's the obvious choice.  Oh, also, I kinda sorta disqualified Roy Cooper as well.  That's how my rabbit hole started - I was checking up on 2022 Senate races and saw it mentioned that he was speculated as VP if a woman won the nomination in 2020.  Anyway, I'd rather him win the Senate seat and keep it.

17 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I see the raspy voice as an asset!

Yeah.  I think the real reason I didn't go with Brown is the Dems would almost certainly lose his seat.

As for the mentioning of Tom Wolf or John Bel Edwards - this is my problem.  They are very much boring white guys that I don't think bring anything to the table and I think that type of conventional wisdom is outdated.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I think Buttigieg would be a mistake.  He adds nothing but a young white face.  Which gets back to the idea that if you can't find a non-boring white male candidate maybe don't pick one.  Honestly the only white dude who would add something to the ticket would be Jawn Fetterman.  

Castro would be decent.  Corey Booker? 

Dream candidate would be someone not committed to indulging the MIC, but I don't expect we'll ever see anyone like that anywhere near the WH.  Mike Gravel's still alive right?  

[DMC]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

Mike Gravel's still alive right?  

I think he's at that in-between stage where no one can tell if he's a ghost or not.

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Which gets back to the idea that if you can't find a non-boring white male candidate maybe don't pick one.

Yes, this is the conclusion I arrived at with Castro.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Cuomo might have some time to spare in '24.

You can recruit that Kennedy kid, who failed to win his Senate primary.

Otherwise, maybe you find someone you like in Obama's cabinet.

[Maithanet]

I think Wolf or Evers could bring something to the table in their respective states, and winning the Presidency really means winning at least three of WI/MI/PA/AZ/GA/NC.  If you can help deliver one of those, then that's worth a lot. 

They could also serve to inoculate Harris from charges of being a crazy leftist, which will most likely be the primary Republican attack. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

I saw an interesting explanation of Jeff Bezos’ support this morning on CNBC. First of all, Bezos gets paid in a “tax efficient” manner, in other words, under favorable tax rules meant to “encourage” top employees. Stock options. He pays virtually no tax, so unless those generous provisions of the tax code are changed, he’s not worried about personal taxes going up. I’m sure @Mlle. Zabzie could give a succinct explanation of the tax provisions., including the corporate ones I’m about to mention.

This is just flat wrong.  Stock options are VERY unfavorably taxed.  While you are correct that options are not taxed at grant, the "spread" is taxable as compensatory ordinary income rates upon exercise (or sale of the option, though they are not usually able to be sold.  Usually they are exercised and the stock is sold on a shelf registration simultaneously).  Thus, while he does get a "deferral" benefit, there is a permanent rate differential.  There is a break point where you are indifferent as to deferral v. rate, but usually the expiration on the option doesn't reach that long.  The US is NOT an outlier in this.  I believe that, for instance, the Canadian and UK rules are basically the same.  The real reason why Bezos DNGAF is because he's so super wealthy that the marginal dollars do not matter to him.  Also, most of what he has is low basis "founder stock", I would guess.  I would also guess that stock is sitting in estate planning trusts; that he never plans to sell it; and that he hopes (expects?) that there will be a tax-free step up on death.  So, like basically CNBC is full of $h*t, proving once again that reporting on tax issues in this country is totally incompetent.

Amazon pays very little (zero?) in corporate taxes because of similarly generous provisions in the US tax code, meant to encourage corporate spending. Amazon is expanding, and spending huge amounts of money every year, which, I think, they can write off against income immediately (“on an accelerated basis”) instead of, say, over a ten year period. 25% or 28% of nothing is the same amount of tax as 19% of nothing.

So, the TCJA did include generous expensing provisions that allow certain kinds of capital investment to be written off immediately.  And yes, as long as capital investment is continuing rather than ceasing, you can "kick the can" forward.  But many corporations don't take expensing because it creates or adds to an NOL.  NOLs can now be carried forward forever, BUT they only offset 80% of taxable income.  So, you might prefer either MACRS (which is double declining balance) or straightline, depending on your plan.  I would guess far more powerful for Amazon is rather their IP and international planning.  I don't represent them (otherwise wouldn't comment), and didn't look at their K, but my guess is that either pre-2018 NOLs (fully deductible, carried forward 20 years) and/or IP planning/transfer pricing is the real driver for them.  Note that eventually accelerated depreciation "turns" and so there is probably a large deferred tax liability on their books to acknowledge all expensing (if that's what is happening).

The US is a very unusual country in the world in that it taxes the overseas earnings of citizens and corporations. A 5% tax was put on overseas income of US corporations a few years ago, I think under Trump but it may have been earlier. This is just so wrong I don't even know where to start.  There are two new taxes - a minimum tax, the BEAT, that applies to certain kinds of related party deductible payments, which may be what you are referring to, and also GILTI, which taxes on a current basis certain off-shore profits, but at a rate of approximately  1/2 of the corporate rate IFF the taxpayer qualifies for certain credits or deductions.  It's not just corporations.  Apparently there is a suggestion that tax would be doubled to 10% under the Biden plan,  I think you are referring to GILTI? which would really hit a company like Amazon. Would hurt all multi-nationals.  Corporations argue it’s an unfair tax, because other countries don’t have a 5% WAAAYYYYY higher than 5%.  Note that we don't have a VAT.  tax on the overseas earnings of their companies because they don’t tax the foreign earnings of their corporations in the first place, and doubling the tax to 10% would really be grossly unfair. I heard that the estimated amount of money this tax would bring in over a ten year period is substantially more than the tax revenues that either a 25% or a 28% corporate tax would bring in.

So Bezos said, sure, increase corporate taxes, they don’t pay any anyway. But behind the scenes I gather there’s furious lobbying against doubling the foreign earnings tax.  See above re IP planning.  Smart money says the rate is going to 26%.

As for the amount of money to be spent on infrastructure, the argument against a big spend is that it means there will be less money in the financial system for private corporations. I hadn’t thought about the spending in those terms before, and perhaps someone else can explain the concept better than I can.

The analysis you reference is basically wrong.  I put responses in-line in bold.

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Otherwise, maybe you find someone you like in Obama's cabinet.

Other than Castro and Rice (who obviously wouldn't go with Harris), there's not much there either.

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I think Wolf or Evers could bring something to the table in their respective states, and winning the Presidency really means winning at least three of WI/MI/PA/AZ/GA/NC.

I agree with this in principle, but Wolf is not particularly popular in his own state.  I haven't seen anything since, but his approval on handling covid dropped below 50% in the fall.  I don't know much about Evers but he strikes me as pretty blah.  He barely beat a deeply unpopular governor running for a third term in a very advantageous cycle - and it doesn't look like he's built up popularity with incumbency either.

[DanteGabriel]

59 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Talk about NYers between Scylla and Charybdis:

"Andrew Giuliani: I Plan to Run Against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2022"

https://www.thedailybeast.com/andrew-giuliani-says-he-plans-to-run-against-new-york-governor-andrew-cuomo-in-2022

The only person who has a less chance of election than Cuomo has of re-election.

Jesus, why can't he just get a job with the Heritage Foundation or some other job mill for useless right wing failsons?