World Politics

[Alpe d'Huez]

I heard a proposal today...

I would support such a plan, though I'd like to see a portion of payroll wages or other employee perks be part of the option as well.

The biggest potential benefit is that it would get money moving in this country, which is likely to be more beneficial than any number crunched net gain/loss. There must be ways to get the economy going without simply handing out tax breaks, or government spending.

I think a real key is that it would be time dated. If in two years it succeeds or fails, we'll get an idea why and Congress can vote on it again.

 

[Anonymous]

I would support such a plan, though I'd like to see a portion of payroll wages or other employee perks be part of the option as well.

The biggest potential benefit is that it would get money moving in this country, which is likely to be more beneficial than any number crunched net gain/loss. There must be ways to get the economy going without simply handing out tax breaks, or government spending.

I think a real key is that it would be time dated. If in two years it succeeds or fails, we'll get an idea why and Congress can vote on it again.

It seems to me this may be able to be done by executive order. I would imagine Jeff Imelt might be a good sounding board since he's pretty close to Obama (although he is also an epic D-Bag).

This could be the beginning of a tax code re-write as well. If it works perhaps it could be written in the code. I don't know if 25% is the correct number but I'd guess it would not be too hard for Obama to pick up the phone and call John Chambers and figure out how to be competitive.

This is what happens when raising taxes get to be our governments cure all.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7360932n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

Pretty interesting if you have not seen this already.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Oops. Please accept my apologies.

FWIW, I don't read the economist much.... occasionally at best.

No apology necessary, I only said that after Rhubarb pointed out it's (the mag's) "big business running absolutely everything" mantra.

 

[redtreviso]

The Corporate tax rate is 35%. Companies like Cisco have over a Trillion dollars they have made conducting business in other countries (having already paid tax to the country where the profit was made) and refuse to bring those dollars back to the US.

I heard a proposal today.

Eliminate the corporate tax at least temporarily (2 years). EDIT: for repatriated monies.

Allow those companies to repatriate their earnings.... with a caveat. 25% of the repatriated monies must be spent on new hires or plant & equipment. In other words a portion of those dollars have to be spent upgrading their business'.

See what happens.... status quo means that money will sit overseas forever because Cisco, Google and Apple are not bringing that money back to the US at 35%.

I got a better idea.. Delist their GDF stock from all american exchanges and make them file ADRs,, cancel all abatements on all facilities here.. close the federal free trade zones in their parking lots..

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

60 Minutes episode on corporate taxes.

Pretty interesting if you have not seen this already.

Excellent link there Scott.

As I was alluding to before, I would support this, but it would have to be a pretty tight bill (or executive order) and have some sort of provision compelling corporations to put money into US workers, and US hard purchases. If they did enough of that, I could see the corporate tax rate cut in half as part of an overall tax reform bill.

Reading up on the 2004 American Jobs Creation Act, which was briefly mentioned in the 60 Minutes segment, shows you two potential pitfalls. First, that act, despite closing some loopholes, was riddled with other loopholes and perks for specific tax payers due to lobbying. Second, there weren't enough provisions to actually create jobs, and it turned into a combination of corporate tax giveaway, and Treasury booster. Probably better than just shifting jobs overseas and not collecting anything, but despite what someone like Grover Norquist may say, the bill did very little to create jobs. Well, I suppose a lot of CPAs and tax attorneys were flush with work.

Here's an extra segment on the 2004 Job Creation Act on that same 60 Minutes episode.

 

[rhubroma]

Really? Show me.



Yes, let's bash the source. Propaganda? The study is either true or untrue. If untrue it should be very easy to demonstrate. So, set me straight.

Scott we have gone over this so many times before. Mine was obviously a provocation, which, in theory, is true, even if medical attention is given, though not on a democratic and principled basis.

It doesn't matter to me that on performance the private option (and who could but doubt in this America) has a better track record. But this is also because anything with the word public in it is destined to not have the resources nor the cultural mindest (again in this America) to make it better (although, conversely, go to a country like Denmark where there aren't a shortage of resources and where there exists a highly civilized mentality and there it works extremely well).

Ultimately this doesn't interest me and is neither here nor there, however, because when the entire private system is based on a privileged class that can afford those fees, while for everyone else one has to hope for the "generosity" of the hospital staff and "compassion" of the state, there's something awry.

Because I don't find that either "generosity" or "compassion" should factor in, since the issue of individual health in a civilized society is one for which everyone has the right to public assistance, because it is a facet of what has been called social capital that can't be confined within the realm of that other type of monetary capital governed by the logic of profit and the market.

Health, like water and air, has a symbolic worth that reminds us that society isn't a business, that the laws and logic that govern business should have no place in such things as basic to survival as these; and which thus must be held within an egalitarian state to a concept of the collective, public domain, not based on class or individual earnings and that is the property of single corporations like the insurance businesses, but of society at large.

I realize mine is a discussion about a principle. But has the word become so dirty in this capitalist society as to loose all value in a cynical culture that sees my neighbor as merely an obstacle to be surpassed?

PS: Living in a society, as you know, in which a public healthcare system has always been a cornerstone of its democracy and seeing as how it has always worked for me, for which my taxes cover my basic needs in this regard and I don't have to be anxious over whether or not my salary would be able to cover in addition the exorbitant fees demanded of a private coverage provider; I have the experience of both systems to see which is more principled and just and which simply is not.

Yet for those even here in Italy who wish a private alternative, they can certainly chose to pay as they desire for it. It exists, though isn't the one that is the only viable choice to the masses and has been foisted upon them by business with the government's compliance and approval, which is simply wrong Scott.

 

[rhubroma]

...
The woman is incredibly ignorant. She even recently believed that Africa is a country! It's depressing to think that an American university actually allowed this nitwit to graduate. She has about as much education as a bag of rocks. Just imagine her trying to run our country!

As bland and unoriginal Tim Pawlenty is, or as much of a flip-flopper Romney is, either would be much better nominee than she is. Thank goodness, at least for now, she isn't running.

Aparantly the republican party is under the Obama effect.

If you look at the possible presidential candidates there's a black man, a couple of women, non-wasps. And a couple of mormons.

The black man is an ultra-conservative businessman, the women are teaparty nut bags...then there are the mormons.

One flew over the cuckoo’s nest anybody.

 

[darkcloud]

The real problem here in the USA is our education system or better yet lack of an education system.

No arguments with that statement.

 

[chambers]

You completely missed what I was saying, and kept right on going where you were. You and the others were discussing presidential candidates and their corruption. Instead of agreeing, or pointing out something from say Obama's fundraising, or, God forbid, you actually offered a suggestion on how to fix the problem or some sort of solution, you simply added to the pile by up Pelosi. Granted, she may be the absolute bottom of the barrel, but bringing her up accomplishes nothing. It would be as if I were to now retort something on Trent Lott or Tom DeLay just to prove there are bad Republicans too.



The woman is incredibly ignorant. She even recently believed that Africa is a country! It's depressing to think that an American university actually allowed this nitwit to graduate. She has about as much education as a bag of rocks. Just imagine her trying to run our country!

As bland and unoriginal Tim Pawlenty is, or as much of a flip-flopper Romney is, either would be much better nominee than she is. Thank goodness, at least for now, she isn't running.

And Oboma believed that Europe is a country! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nGXqsKchPk

 

[redtreviso]

And Oboma believed that Europe is a country! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nGXqsKchPk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E is that you? the blonde with the tartar fused together teeth?

 

[patricknd]

And Oboma believed that Europe is a country! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nGXqsKchPk

Don't forget the 57 states

 

[Anonymous]

Don't forget the 57 states

But there is no such thing as an idiot leftist. Stupidity, by definition, can only exist on the right.

The more the left freaks over Palin the bigger the smile on my face.

Uh, she's not running, but don't let that info slow you down.

 

[redtreviso]

But there is no such thing as an idiot leftist. Stupidity, by definition, can only exist on the right.

The more the left freaks over Palin the bigger the smile on my face.

Uh, she's not running, but don't let that info slow you down.

some people can misspeak and some people are stupid.. You don't know the difference.

ps 57 is a relevant number,,but you know that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_area

 

[Anonymous]

some people can misspeak and some people are stupid.. You don't know the difference.

ps there is no left

There is a left (of which you epitomize).

Has Palin ever misspoke? How about Dubya?

To declare there to be 57 States would indicate stupidity, no?

Palin/Bachmann 2012. You go girls!

Heartburn Red, Heartburn. Get used to it.

 

[redtreviso]

There is a left (of which you epitomize).

Has Palin ever misspoke? How about Dubya?

To declare there to be 57 States would indicate stupidity, no?

Palin/Bachmann 2012. You go girls!

Heartburn Red, Heartburn. Get used to it.

the world according to garp ,,,,I mean scott

 

[Anonymous]

the world according to garp ,,,,I mean scott

Whining according to Red. Bawahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

 

[rhubroma]

And now I'm trying to wrap my brain around the "ratings" institutions and the solvency of nations in debt. The biggest three, all American, hold 55% of the market share: Standard & Poor's and Moody's (40%) and Fitch (15%). More powerful than the US Treasury, these guys establish the value of treasury bonds that determine a state's solvency based upon the relationship between GNP and national debt, and hence effect the policy of whole governments and public opinion.

These economic report card givers initially were only the evaluators of private companies, but have since the 70's and the invention of mass credit, followed by so called creative financial capitalism (hedge funds, etc.) have now become the grade givers of entire nations, which means that the well being of the state and the health of its private business sector are inextricably entwined. Private wealth and public life are through them inseparable.

The world of credit has changed immensely since the 70's, with the banks taking less of a primary role than before in calculating risk, while so called financial advisors have had an increased power in creating the investment portfolios (the sharks of Wall Street, the gnomes of Zurich, the Arab sheiks and the predators of hedge funds), entire people's pensions and insurance policies were gambled on the stock markets before 07 with the ok of these rating firms.

These firms gave AAA rating to the same toxic investments that destroyed the US housing market and caused Wall Street to blow up in 07, yet they expect to be God's word in assessing countries like Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland today. Not that these states aren't facing serious problems (but so is the US, which has the highest debt of all and a sluggish economy), however, the disgraceful Wall Street scenario just mentioned leaves us little confidence in the judgment (or objectivity) of the Three Sisters. And before that Enron and Parmalat were also for years given AAA on their stocks by them. Why? The usual appalling conflict of interests at the basis of their work: the ratings experts get payed by the same companies whose stocks they assess.

Solving this rebus, is perhaps to solve the problem of all problems.

 

[blutto]

...a little dittie that hits all the right notes...

http://www.politicsplus.org/blog/?p=5154

Cheers

blutto

 

[Bala Verde]

And now I'm trying to wrap my brain around the "ratings" institutions and the solvency of nations in debt. The biggest three, all American, hold 55% of the market share: Standard & Poor's and Moody's (40%) and Fitch (15%). More powerful than the US Treasury, these guys establish the value of treasury bonds that determine a state's solvency based upon the relationship between GNP and national debt, and hence effect the policy of whole governments and public opinion.

These economic report card givers initially were only the evaluators of private companies, but have since the 70's and the invention of mass credit, followed by so called creative financial capitalism (hedge funds, etc.) have now become the grade givers of entire nations, which means that the well being of the state and the health of its private business sector are inextricably entwined. Private wealth and public life are through them inseparable.

The world of credit has changed immensely since the 70's, with the banks taking less of a primary role than before in calculating risk, while so called financial advisors have had an increased power in creating the investment portfolios (the sharks of Wall Street, the gnomes of Zurich, the Arab sheiks and the predators of hedge funds), entire people's pensions and insurance policies were gambled on the stock markets before 07 with the ok of these rating firms.

These firms gave AAA rating to the same toxic investments that destroyed the US housing market and caused Wall Street to blow up in 07, yet they expect to be God's word in assessing countries like Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland today. Not that these states aren't facing serious problems (but so is the US, which has the highest debt of all and a sluggish economy), however, the disgraceful Wall Street scenario just mentioned leaves us little confidence in the judgment (or objectivity) of the Three Sisters. And before that Enron and Parmalat were also for years given AAA on their stocks by them. Why? The usual appalling conflict of interests at the basis of their work: the ratings experts get payed by the same companies whose stocks they assess.

Solving this rebus, is perhaps to solve the problem of all problems.

You may add the 'fines' they hand out to market manipulators as well:

Goldman Caught Manipulating Brent/WTI Spread: Penalty: $40,340

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

And now I'm trying to wrap my brain around the "ratings" institutions and the solvency of nations in debt. The biggest three, all American, hold 55% of the market share: Standard & Poor's and Moody's (40%) and Fitch (15%). More powerful than the US Treasury, these guys establish the value of treasury bonds that determine a state's solvency based upon the relationship between GNP and national debt, and hence effect the policy of whole governments and public opinion.

This is precisely what I was referring to when I offered a suggestion that the tax code, and capital gains taxes, be split, because there's a huge risk difference between what these capital investors, and the venture capitalist or angel investor who puts money into a direct business or start-up, actually risk. But with exception to the warped tax code (which benefits some, and none, on both sides of this coin) these two are taxed the same. Have a billion dollars and put it in to treasury bills, municipal bonds? You pay the same rate as someone who sinks everything into a local business start-up. Congress and most politicians - both sides - treat them the same, like they are both investing in and growing the economy and both taking the same risk, when it's simply not so.

As to Palin's intellect. You'll recall I was comparing her to Romney and Pawlenty. And I did say she wasn't running (yet). But if anyone actually thinks that she (or W( is as intelligent as Obama, all I can say is Good bless you.

 

[Hugh Januss]

As to Palin's intellect. You'll recall I was comparing her to Romney and Pawlenty. And I did say she wasn't running (yet). But if anyone actually thinks that she (or W( is as intelligent as Obama, all I can say is Good bless you.

A better reaction might be what Jon Stewart said to Chris Wallace.

 

[Anonymous]

This is precisely what I was referring to when I offered a suggestion that the tax code, and capital gains taxes, be split, because there's a huge risk difference between what these capital investors, and the venture capitalist or angel investor who puts money into a direct business or start-up, actually risk. But with exception to the warped tax code (which benefits some, and none, on both sides of this coin) these two are taxed the same. Have a billion dollars and put it in to treasury bills, municipal bonds? You pay the same rate as someone who sinks everything into a local business start-up. Congress and most politicians - both sides - treat them the same, like they are both investing in and growing the economy and both taking the same risk, when it's simply not so.

As to Palin's intellect. You'll recall I was comparing her to Romney and Pawlenty. And I did say she wasn't running (yet). But if anyone actually thinks that she (or W( is as intelligent as Obama, all I can say is Good bless you.

I agree with your idea (I think private capital would flock to wherever there's a reasonable chance at success combined with favorable tax treatment) but just to clarify, most Muni Bonds are federal tax free.

Additionally it would not surprise me to see some tax breaks provided to those that buy T Notes and T Bills as foreign investment is drying up. There has to be a market for those debt instruments or we will have to stop spending so much more than we produce... or what the govt pays in interest will skyrocket.

All of this fly's in the face of your idea... to put money into small start-ups to get the fundamentals of our economic engine back up and running. I don't know what might change... my guess is nothing will.

 

[Bala Verde]

Interesting case on "overregulation in the US Health care system"...

At the center of the Mayo appeal is its claim that no patent should be issued on observations of how varying a dosage of a medicine alters the way a patient reacts. Those kinds of observations are what doctors do routinely, the Mayo group has contended, and bottling up that process in someone’s exclusive patent rights would stifle normal medical practice, and force doctors to spend time looking in legal files to see if they are infringing.

 

[rhubroma]

As far as the conflict of interests goes, a Standard and Poor's boss put it ironically: "We are victims of the Stockholm syndrome," that is we sympathize with those who keep us hostage (the companies that emit stocks).

Following the 07-09 crisis a US Congressional Committee came to the conclusion that the three ratings agencies were "an essential component of the machine of financial destruction."

 

[rhubroma]

True story. US man holds up bank for 1$ (no this isn't Woody Allen) to get arrested to be able to have access to medical treatments in prison that he can't afford on his own.

Private healthcare at its finest.

http://www.repubblica.it/persone/20..._banca_da_un_dollaro-17998072/1/?ref=HRESS-15