Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 223

Thread: Trump Budget and Healthcare

  1. #1

    Default Trump Budget and Healthcare

    Trump’s budget calls for deep cuts to U.S. health care safety net
    Trump’s Medicaid cuts appear even bigger than those in the health care bill recently passed by House Republicans, above what would be needed to fulfil the GOP vow to repeal “Obamacare.”
    https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...afety-net.html

    Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney discussed the budget at the White House on Tuesday. Calling it a "New Foundation for American Greatness," the $4.1 trillion budget for would cut programs for the poor, including health care, food stamps, student loans and disability payments while offering big tax cuts for the wealthy.

    WASHINGTON—Candidate Donald Trump promised better and more affordable health care, but as president his first full budget calls for deep cuts to popular insurance programs. And it omits any proposal for negotiating prescription drug prices, a frequent Trump talking point.

    While not addressing Medicare’s long term financial problems, the budget targets the much smaller Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. And Trump’s Medicaid cuts appear even bigger than those in the health care bill recently passed by House Republicans, above what would be needed to fulfil the GOP vow to repeal “Obamacare.”


    Both safety net programs are federal-state collaborations, and such cuts would leave states with hard choices: spend more of their own money; restrict enrolment; cut benefits, or reduce payments to hospitals and doctors.


    “If states get fewer dollars from the federal government, there are only so many options, because states have to balance the budget every year,” said Elizabeth Carpenter, a health policy expert with the consulting firm Avalare Health.
    Medicaid is facing even bigger cuts. Already, the House GOP bill would roll back former president Barack Obama’s Medicaid expansion while also capping future federal financing for the program. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that would reduce federal Medicaid spending by $839 billion over 10 years.

    Trump’s budget would squeeze additional savings beyond that, but congressional aides say how much is not exactly clear. White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney has indicated that the budget uses a lower growth rate for the federal government’s share of future Medicaid spending.


    “The Trump budget assumes hundreds of billions more in Medicaid cuts than the House bill,” said Edwin Park, a health policy expert with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which advocates for low-income people.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  2. #2
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,406

    Default

    Yay, another Trump thread!

  3. #3

    Default

    ^Yup. Soon can have:

    Trump on Defense
    Trump on Tax Reform
    Trump on Environment
    Trump on Melania (she won't hold his hand ever since he visited the Saudi Harem...)
    Last edited by moahunter; 24-05-2017 at 12:54 PM.

  4. #4

    Default

    Don't forget

    Trump on Nepotism
    Trump on Drugs
    Trump on Impeachment
    Trump on SNL


    Memo: If you don't like a thread, move along...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  5. #5

    Default

    I have never seen this level of obsession from the media and political opponents about an elected official before.

    It's as if Trump's opponents still think the election campaign is still going on, or still cannot get over the fact that Donald Trump is the President of the USA or something. It's like a neurosis. Even some of my friends who never liked Donald Trump have commented that they are fatigued from the media's constant advocacy against him and don't even pay attention to it anymore.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    It's as if Trump's opponents still think the election campaign is still going on, or still cannot get over the fact that Donald Trump is the President of the USA or something. It's like a neurosis. Even some of my friends who never liked Donald Trump have commented that they are fatigued from the media's constant advocacy against him and don't even pay attention to it anymore.
    You realize Trump hauled out election result maps last month & filed his candidacy for 2020 literally ASAP & has been throwing campaign rallies ever since he took office?

    http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...g-china-2017-4

    http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/feci...209041436569+0

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...turday/516909/
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    It's as if Trump's opponents still think the election campaign is still going on, or still cannot get over the fact that Donald Trump is the President of the USA or something. It's like a neurosis. Even some of my friends who never liked Donald Trump have commented that they are fatigued from the media's constant advocacy against him and don't even pay attention to it anymore.
    You realize Trump hauled out election result maps last month & filed his candidacy for 2020 literally ASAP & has been throwing campaign rallies ever since he took office?

    http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...g-china-2017-4

    http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/feci...209041436569+0

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...turday/516909/
    I'm just waiting for a proposal from him to abolish or extend term limits - and then some attempt to put one of his kids into power to keep the new kingdom in the family.


    Democracy, Dictatorship, and Term Limits
    Alexander Baturo, Series Editor Michael Laver, Copyright Date: 2014, Published by: University of Michigan Press

    excerpt:
    In the past fifty years, between 1960 and 2010, from Latin America to post-Soviet Eurasia, out of two hundred term-bounded presidents that have served their terms, more than a quarter have managed to extend their stay in office beyond constitutionally mandated periods in one way or another. Many ambitious presidents throughout the world strive to increase their power and control the executive, the legislative and judiciary branches of their nations, and to preside over enforcement agencies that make it possible to extend these leaders’ remit into all corners of public and private life. Yet, if these leaders have to surrender..."

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.4772634


  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    I have never seen this level of obsession from the media and political opponents about an elected official before.
    That's because we have never seen such an incompetent President before.

    Sort of goes hand in hand...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  9. #9
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    I have never seen this level of obsession from the media and political opponents about an elected official before.

    It's as if Trump's opponents still think the election campaign is still going on, or still cannot get over the fact that Donald Trump is the President of the USA or something. It's like a neurosis. Even some of my friends who never liked Donald Trump have commented that they are fatigued from the media's constant advocacy against him and don't even pay attention to it anymore.
    Are you serious? Elements of the Republican party, Fox News, Breitbart and later on Trump spent the better part of Obama's ENTIRE PRESIDENCY questioning the legitimacy of his birth certificate, whether he was secretly a Muslim, and so on. And none of that had absolutely any basis in fact, whatsoever. And let's not even get started on the ridiculousness of the Benghazi witch hunt. Your claim about obsession is about as valid as Trump's claim to be the most unfairly treated politician of all time. You know, other than all those politicians that were assassinated, jailed, beaten, and so on.

  10. #10
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,493

    Default

    Thing is, the guy is such a prat. Might as well give him the roughest ride possible.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    I have never seen this level of obsession from the media and political opponents about an elected official before.

    It's as if Trump's opponents still think the election campaign is still going on, or still cannot get over the fact that Donald Trump is the President of the USA or something. It's like a neurosis. Even some of my friends who never liked Donald Trump have commented that they are fatigued from the media's constant advocacy against him and don't even pay attention to it anymore.
    No, the campaign isn't still ongoing. However, Trump has already registered for the 202 campaign and has called his rallies "campaign rallies". So, yes, it is campaigning.

  12. #12

    Default

    Back on Trumpdon'tcare and the budget


    Congressional Budget Office Report Published
    23 million would lose health insurance under Republican bill: CBO

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle35106755/
    A bill passed by U.S. House Republicans would cause 23 million people to lose health-care coverage by 2026 while de-stabilizing health insurance markets in some states and making it hard for sick people to buy insurance, a budget watchdog agency said on Wednesday.

    The Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan group of experts who analyze U.S. legislation, said the bill would reduce federal deficits by $119-billion between 2017 and 2026.






    Trumpcare death panel



    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  13. #13

    Default

    Enough...

    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 25-05-2017 at 06:57 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  14. #14

    Default

    So what if people have to die? I want a bigger yacht!

    Zombie Trumpcare at a glance, from the CBO

    "The number of people losing insurance in the next year is 14 million, the same as in the original Trumpcare. It would force 23 million out of insurance in the next decade, 1 million fewer than the original Trumpcare. As Dylan Matthews points out it "costs $218 billion more than the original, covers 1 million more. That's $218,000 per new person insured."


    By 2026, 51 million people will be uninsured, compared to 28 million under current law—Obamacare.




    Among those uninsured, "the increase would be disproportionately larger among older people with lower income—particularly people between 50 and 64 years old with income of less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level." Like, 800 percent more expensive.




    Relatedly, it would increase Medicare disproportionate-share payments to hospitals by $43 billion in the next decade, because of the costs of treating so many new uninsured patients.




    It would destabilize the individual insurance market for one-sixth of the population in the states that get the waivers to avoid providing comprehensive coverage, which would mean that premiums for people buying comprehensive plans would be unaffordable.




    It would cut $834 billion from Medicaid in the next ten years, and cut 14 million people out of Medicaid coverage.




    But, hey! It would be a $663 billion tax cut over the next 10 years for the rich! "

    http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017...e-from-the-CBO

  15. #15

    Default

    The beauty of being both in favour of and anti everything is that you can always say that you've always said.

    Republicans Shellshocked by Health Defeat Split on Next Step - Bloomberg

    "They should have approved health care last night but, boy oh boy, the swamp," Trump said in a speech Friday in Ronkonkoma, New York. "I said from the beginning let Obamacare implode."

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-on-next-steps

  16. #16
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,961

    Default

    From Anthem to Aetna, major health insurers are leaving ObamaCare marketplace
    By Kaitlyn Schallhorn Published August 08, 2017

    Anthem, one of the largest health insurers in the U.S., announced Monday that it will not offer plans through the Affordable Care Act’s insurance marketplace in Nevada next year.

    The insurer also is expected to drastically scale back the plans it offers in Georgia, leaving only some insured in rural counties that otherwise would be left without coverage. With the removal of Anthem, there are 14 counties in Nevada that will not have health insurance for individuals, according to Fox Business.
    Fox News Research‏@FoxNewsResearch

    UnitedHealthcare and #Obamacare
    2016: Exchanges in 34 states
    2017: Exchanges in 3 states
    2015 & 2016: Lost over $1 billion on Obamacare
    Anthem certainly isn’t the first insurer to scale back or pull out of the marketplace completely. Read on for a look at others.

    Aetna
    Aetna announced in May that it plans to completely leave the ObamaCare marketplace by 2018.
    “Our individual Commercial products lost nearly $700 million between 2014 and 2016, and are projected to lose more than $200 million in 2017 despite a significant reduction in membership,” the company said in a statement. “Those losses are the result of marketplace structural issues that have led to co-op failures and carrier exits, and subsequent risk pool deterioration.”

    Humana
    Humana, which covers about 150,000 people in 11 states, announced earlier this year that it would leave the Affordable Care Act’s public insurance exchange.
    Humana was the first major insurer to cast a no-confidence vote about selling individual plans on the public marketplace for 2018, according to The New York Times. Its main focus has been selling private insurance through Medicare.

    Minuteman Health
    A Massachusetts-based insurance co-op, Minuteman Health announced in June that it plans to withdraw from the market in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
    Due to a lack of capital, the insurer has been placed in state receivership.

    Molina Healthcare
    Molina Healthcare Inc., revealed this month its plans to withdraw from the marketplace in Utah and Wisconsin.
    It also said it was reviewing its offerings in other states, as performance in Florida and Washington has been dismal.

    Harken Health Insurance
    A startup by UnitedHealth Group Inc., Harken Health Insurance announced last year that it would pull out of the marketplace in the two states where it offered insurance.
    The insurer said it would no longer offer plans in Georgia or Chicago.

    UnitedHealth also pulled out of the individual insurance marketplace this year.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...rketplace.html

  17. #17

    Default

    I wonder how much those insurers paid into the Republican 2016 campaign?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  18. #18
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,208

    Default

    Realistically, the failure of the insurance market places means an expansion of Medicaid in those states if the goal is to ensure people have fair access to medical care. Which is one of the reasons why the GOP is having such a difficult time getting Obamacare repealed, they know they have a tarbaby on their hands.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  19. #19

    Default

    $0.3 trillion and now predicting added shortfall of another $1.3 trillion through debt

    Donald Trump is going to build a big, beautiful deficit and rely on China to help pay for it - The Washington Post

    “ “It is going to put quite a bit more money in people’s pockets,” said Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow and trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

    The extra money has to go somewhere. Some of it might be saved by individuals and corporations. But the U.S. has a fairly low saving rate overall. That means the money is likely to go abroad — in the form of Americans buying goods and services.

    When Americans buy those goods and services, they'll give dollars to foreign countries. Those dollars can then in turn be used to provide loans to the U.S. to finance the tax cut. ...”

    “ “The way we mainly wish to reduce the trade deficit is by increasing our exports as opposed to constricting imports,” said Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross at the Wall Street Journal CEO Council. “That way you have more total trade and you have a reduction in the deficit.” “

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...lp-pay-for-it/






    Accounting ‘Gimmicks’ in G.O.P.’s Tax Overhaul Mask Higher Cost, Deficit Hawks Say - The New York Times
    “ “In some ways, this whole bill is a gimmick,” Stan Collender, a former staff member for Democrats on the House and Senate Budget Committees, said of the Senate tax bill. “Rather than just do a tax cut that costs $1.5 trillion, they decided to do a $2 trillion-plus tax cut and lie about it costing $1.5 trillion.”

    Some experts say the cuts, if accurately accounted for, could translate into slower economic growth and bigger budget deficits in the long run. If the cuts are not temporary, they will have to be paid for with additional debt, which will add to the federal deficit and increase the interest costs the United States must pay when it borrows money. ...”


    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/u...-overhaul.html
    Last edited by KC; 02-12-2017 at 10:03 AM.

  20. #20

    Default

    Don't worry, all the benefits will trickle down, just like they did under Reagan.

    Would they lie to you?

  21. #21

    Default

    ^very biased media repots those, tax reform is desperately needed in the US. These reforms will allow companies like Apple to bring billions of dollars back into the US for reinvestment, its easily going to pay for itself in economic growth. All of a sudden, with new technology and favorable tax rules, it makes sense to manufacture in the US again instead of Asia. 1 trillion in the US, is like a quarter of a percent of GDP growth over a few years. With this tax cut, Trump can hit his promise of 3% GDP growth - growth that generates higher tax revenues that easily offset the cuts. By contrast, Trudeaus raising taxes on the rich has reduced Canada's tax take, its just driven capital outside Canada. The US is baking a bigger pie, while Trudeau is just trying to slice ours up differently for his favorite special interest groups, one creates wealth for everyone, the other results in stagnation.
    Last edited by moahunter; 02-12-2017 at 10:40 AM.

  22. #22
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^very biased media repots those, tax reform is desperately needed in the US. These reforms will allow companies like Apple to bring billions of dollars back into the US for reinvestment, its easily going to pay for itself in economic growth. All of a sudden, with new technology and favorable tax rules, it makes sense to manufacture in the US again instead of Asia. 1 trillion in the US, is like a quarter of a percent of GDP growth over a few years. With this tax cut, Trump can hit his promise of 3% GDP growth - growth that generates higher tax revenues that easily offset the cuts. By contrast, Trudeaus raising taxes on the rich has reduced Canada's tax take, its just driven capital outside Canada.
    there isn’t a single reputable agency or economist that disputes this budget will substantially increase the american deficit. the american government’s own estimates are a trillion dollars, private sector estimates range from a half to two trillion. as for increased american manufacturing based in trump’s scatter brained economics, maybe you should ask those carrier plant employees how well that’s turning out. or maybe you could ask his personal tax advisors who will benefit from these cuts and who will pay for them.

    as for those “very biased media reports”, the media is only reporting on those analytics, not writing their content. yes, the american tax system is need of reform but this bill isn’t it. this bill takes many of the current lop-sided entitlements and doesn’t fix them, it increases and entrenches many of the worst aspects even further.
    Last edited by kcantor; 02-12-2017 at 10:47 AM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  23. #23

    Default

    ^lets see what happens to US economic growth... the deficit will grow but the pie will grow by more. The corporate tax reform for companies doing business internationally is going to pump billions of dollars into the US economy, all of a sudden, there is no need to leave the cash offshore in places like Ireland, in fact, there will be a penalty if they do leave cash outside the US. It directly targets Apple, Google, Pharmaceutical companies - anyone who does business outside the US will now be incentivized to bring the money home.
    Last edited by moahunter; 02-12-2017 at 11:04 AM.

  24. #24

    Default

    Trump's solution is to pay people less so that they can get to the "higher stratum". Yeah, that'll work.

    Donald Trump said wages are 'too high' in his opening debate statement

    Nov. 10, 2015


    In his opening statement at Tuesday night's Republican debate on Fox Business, presidential hopeful Donald Trump said he would not raise the minimum wage and that wages were "too high."


    Trump made his comments in response to a question about whether he had sympathy for protesters who wanted to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Tuesday night's debate was focused on the economy.


    "We are a country that is being beaten on every front — economically, militarily," Trump said. "Taxes too high, wages too high, we're not going to be able to compete against the world ... People have to go out, they have to work really hard, and they have to get into that upper stratum."

    http://www.businessinsider.com/donal...o-high-2015-11
    And then, of course, he denied saying it. Didn't admit that he might have misspoke. Didn't admit that he might have been wrong. Simply declared that it never happened. Darn that "fake news" and their video records. And, as the record shows, he didn't say "minimum wage too high", he said "wages too high". Wages. All wages.

    Trump: I never said wages are too high

    But on Fox News’ “Special Report” Thursday he insisted that he never said wages were too high, just that the minimum wage should not increase.


    And as far as the idea that companies will hire more if they get a tax holiday, I'll just leave this.

    Last edited by kkozoriz; 02-12-2017 at 10:57 AM.

  25. #25

    Default

    ^by that brilliant logic, why don't we raise wages to $100 per hour minimum, since it supposedly wont hurt businesses?

  26. #26

    Default

    Reductio Ad Absurdum
    [Latin, Reduction to absurdity.] In logic, a method employed to disprove an argument by illustrating how it leads to an absurd consequence.

    You know, you're right. Demand for a product or service has nothing to do with the ability of a business to survive.

    And as for your claim that Trump is aiming for 3% growth while Trudeau is happy at zero
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    With this tax cut, Trump can hit his promise of 3% GDP growth - growth that generates higher tax revenues that easily offset the cuts. By contrast, Trudeaus raising taxes on the rich has reduced Canada's tax take, its just driven capital outside Canada. The US is baking a bigger pie, while Trudeau is just trying to slice ours up differently for his favorite special interest groups, one creates wealth for everyone, the other results in stagnation.
    You'll have to totally ignore this:

    OTTAWA – The Canadian economy slowed markedly in the third quarter after posting its best 12-month run in over a decade, as stoppages and maintenance work at auto-assembly plants led to a decline in exports.


    Still, growth in Canada on a one-year basis stood at roughly 3%, positioning the economy among one of the best performers in the Group of Seven leading industrialized nations.

    That marks a moderation in expansion from the second quarter, after GDP increased 4.3% versus an earlier estimate of 4.5%.


    A moderation in growth was widely expected. Canadian exports fell 2.7% in the July-to-September period on a nonannualized basis, due mostly to disruptions at automobile factories as companies performed maintenance work or retooled production lines to accommodate new models; and a labor strike at General Motors Co.'s factory in Ingersoll, Ont.

    http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/...nd-update.html



    Congratulations! You're already living in a country with 3% growth! And it would have been higher if companies hadn't shut down for maintenance and re-tooling for new models. Damn that Trudeau for forcing companies to take care of their equipment and make new model cars every year!

    And Trump didn't promise 3% growth, he promised 4%.

    Trump is officially making an economic promise that will be nearly impossible to keep

    As part of the inauguration of President Donald Trump, the new White House rolled out a number of policy promises on its new website.


    The position page on jobs and the economy makes a promise for the US economy that Trump may find pretty hard to keep.


    "To get the economy back on track, President Trump has outlined a bold plan to create 25 million new American jobs in the next decade and return to 4 percent annual economic growth," reads the White House site.


    The 4% GDP promise is one that Trump has made before, but now it is the official promise of the White House and the president.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...promise-2017-1
    But that's OK with the alt-right because he'll just blame his failure to Hillary Clinton, the lack of a border wall, North Korea and Muslims. There, clear as mud.

  27. #27

    Default

    The Republicans' budget is about tax cuts for Republican donors ahead of the 2018 elections, no more than that. That's why Republicans rushed it through without CBO scoring, only had trivial debate, and made last-minute hand-written changes for their lobbyists. Trump was an effective puppet to stir up the frenzy for it.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  28. #28

    Default

    And as soon as Trump signs it, his usefulness to the Republicans is at an end. They'll start to turn on him as the Mueller investigation gets closer to the Oval Office.

    Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if he vetoes it over some trivial reason just to keep himself in a position of usefulness to the GOP.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^lets see what happens to US economic growth... the deficit will grow but the pie will grow by more. The corporate tax reform for companies doing business internationally is going to pump billions of dollars into the US economy, all of a sudden, there is no need to leave the cash offshore in places like Ireland, in fact, there will be a penalty if they do leave cash outside the US. It directly targets Apple, Google, Pharmaceutical companies - anyone who does business outside the US will now be incentivized to bring the money home.
    So massive government deficit spending and debt build up is great news if it’s done by reducing taxes?

    (I’m not saying it’s bad, but I also don’t say that the same thing about taking on debt/deficit without the tax cuts is necessarily always bad either. That borrowed money just first flows through government accounts into private accounts and then on to where the ‘market forces’ take over. It’s one or two intermediary steps of government spending and private sector/government-suckling Corp then to market forces. Lower taxes directly reward those making money...)

    A few issues (no pun intended) that are totally unsubstantiated and are my current opinion and reasoning only: The government can borrow at a lower cost than anyone else. However the government can’t reneg on debt obligations like the private sector can through bankruptcies. So as a country you want risky debt to be issued by corporations and held by foreigners, so domestic lenders don’t get hurt. You also don’t want your government issuing debt in other currencies as that can undo any possibility of maintain credit ratings while devaluing one’s currency (remember the nonsensical US debt panic of 2012). The spread on the Corp higher risk debt would be even higher, maybe much higher than the government borrowing indirectly but the higher probability of large portions of the debt eventually having to be written off makes it ideal to be held by foreigners- as long as its non-convertible debt. Government debt competes with corporate debt and foreign investors seeing massive government debt become less enamoured with picking up corporate issuances because - the writing is on the wall.
    Last edited by KC; 02-12-2017 at 01:23 PM.

  30. #30

    Default

    Just watch the GOP in a few months.

    Oops! We are running out of money so we have to cut healthcare costs, force millions of people off insurance and cut medicare and medicaid.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^by that brilliant logic, why don't we raise wages to $100 per hour minimum, since it supposedly wont hurt businesses?

    It will hurt businesses and sectors that pay below that rate but not those that pay above that rate. Like any cost or competitive pressure. So the widely espoused ‘theory’ is that low pay, marginal businesses fail and people retrain for high pay fields. Then when they are earning high incomes in the high pay fields their spending drives the economy along.

    Also the argument is that by lowering taxes people and businesses will have more money to spend and business will improve. So essentially by that logic, that is the raising people’s wages argument as their net take home wage increases. The businessss remain unaffected until the economy strengthens - then the currency rises and a bunch of them fail due to completion by foreign enterprises.

    Additionally allowing a currency to rise far enough is similar to raising all people wages to $100 per hour compared to wages in a weak currency country. Their goods then underprice the domestic goods and those businesses dependent on paying wages at the low end of the spectrum fail.

    So free trade drives out marginal businesses and forces the population to either and or both unemployment and pursue of the remaining high pay sectors.
    Last edited by KC; 02-12-2017 at 02:52 PM.

  32. #32

    Default

    Not, in Moa's world it's not the same at all. You see, when poor people get more money they waste it on things like food and shelter and the like. When rich people get a huge tax cut, they spread it around by buying a yacht (from an overseas shipyard), a second home (Someplace tax free and tropical) and giving themselves a raise (because they've earned it, unlike those dirty money grubbers that work for them)

    See, perfectly clear.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Reductio Ad Absurdum
    [Latin, Reduction to absurdity.] In logic, a method employed to disprove an argument by illustrating how it leads to an absurd consequence.

    You know, you're right. Demand for a product or service has nothing to do with the ability of a business to survive.

    And as for your claim that Trump is aiming for 3% growth while Trudeau is happy at zero
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    With this tax cut, Trump can hit his promise of 3% GDP growth - growth that generates higher tax revenues that easily offset the cuts. By contrast, Trudeaus raising taxes on the rich has reduced Canada's tax take, its just driven capital outside Canada. The US is baking a bigger pie, while Trudeau is just trying to slice ours up differently for his favorite special interest groups, one creates wealth for everyone, the other results in stagnation.
    You'll have to totally ignore this:

    OTTAWA – The Canadian economy slowed markedly in the third quarter after posting its best 12-month run in over a decade, as stoppages and maintenance work at auto-assembly plants led to a decline in exports.


    Still, growth in Canada on a one-year basis stood at roughly 3%, positioning the economy among one of the best performers in the Group of Seven leading industrialized nations.

    That marks a moderation in expansion from the second quarter, after GDP increased 4.3% versus an earlier estimate of 4.5%.


    A moderation in growth was widely expected. Canadian exports fell 2.7% in the July-to-September period on a nonannualized basis, due mostly to disruptions at automobile factories as companies performed maintenance work or retooled production lines to accommodate new models; and a labor strike at General Motors Co.'s factory in Ingersoll, Ont.

    http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/...nd-update.html



    Congratulations! You're already living in a country with 3% growth! And it would have been higher if companies hadn't shut down for maintenance and re-tooling for new models. Damn that Trudeau for forcing companies to take care of their equipment and make new model cars every year!

    And Trump didn't promise 3% growth, he promised 4%.

    Trump is officially making an economic promise that will be nearly impossible to keep

    As part of the inauguration of President Donald Trump, the new White House rolled out a number of policy promises on its new website.


    The position page on jobs and the economy makes a promise for the US economy that Trump may find pretty hard to keep.


    "To get the economy back on track, President Trump has outlined a bold plan to create 25 million new American jobs in the next decade and return to 4 percent annual economic growth," reads the White House site.


    The 4% GDP promise is one that Trump has made before, but now it is the official promise of the White House and the president.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...promise-2017-1
    But that's OK with the alt-right because he'll just blame his failure to Hillary Clinton, the lack of a border wall, North Korea and Muslims. There, clear as mud.
    Deficit spending, and Trudeau did it first. Trump is just a copycat. The tax cuts, well, again hasn’t Trump said that their corp taxes are higher than their competitors? Higher than Canadian competitors? I don’t know. If so, then he’s just again, a copycat.


    Cut all taxes to zero and borrow billions upon billions of dollars and we should be able to grow at lightning fast clip and then just ask for pocket change donations from our country populated by millionaires and billionaires to pay off the hundreds of billions or trilllions in debt. Easy peasy.
    Last edited by KC; 02-12-2017 at 03:00 PM.

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Not, in Moa's world it's not the same at all. You see, when poor people get more money they waste it on things like food and shelter and the like. When rich people get a huge tax cut, they spread it around by buying a yacht (from an overseas shipyard), a second home (Someplace tax free and tropical) and giving themselves a raise (because they've earned it, unlike those dirty money grubbers that work for them)

    See, perfectly clear.
    Yeah the poor spend their money on imported goods and services (only imported food, imported double wides, etc) whereas the rich never only their gains back into the local economy and never into foreign stocks, foreign travel, foreign vacation properties, foreign retirement, imported luxuries, etc.

  35. #35
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,586

    Default

    Hmm unemployment is way down, at 4.1 %. Stands to reason, when the US does well, so do we..

  36. #36
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,349
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  37. #37

  38. #38

    Default

    Yes Hello Lady, the unemployment has been going on for 16 years before Trump and no massive tax cuts to the top 1% were necessary.

    In the dead of night, without debate or even anyone reading the tax bill, it was passed in the dead of night by a den of thieves.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Yes Hello Lady, the unemployment has been going on for 16 years before Trump and no massive tax cuts to the top 1% were necessary
    Source? The top tax rate is staying the same, the focus of the plan is corporate tax - they want to spur investment, which results in more jobs and higher wages.

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    I have never seen this level of obsession from the media and political opponents about an elected official before.

    It's as if Trump's opponents still think the election campaign is still going on, or still cannot get over the fact that Donald Trump is the President of the USA or something. It's like a neurosis. Even some of my friends who never liked Donald Trump have commented that they are fatigued from the media's constant advocacy against him and don't even pay attention to it anymore.
    This is very true. I have experienced this as well with friends, family and colleagues. Members of the media that engage in these daily panic attacks do not seem to realize they may have the opposite effect.

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by borntohula View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    I have never seen this level of obsession from the media and political opponents about an elected official before.

    It's as if Trump's opponents still think the election campaign is still going on, or still cannot get over the fact that Donald Trump is the President of the USA or something. It's like a neurosis. Even some of my friends who never liked Donald Trump have commented that they are fatigued from the media's constant advocacy against him and don't even pay attention to it anymore.
    This is very true. I have experienced this as well with friends, family and colleagues. Members of the media that engage in these daily panic attacks do not seem to realize they may have the opposite effect.
    I have seen this as well, I was in Texas and someone said to me, "I didn't vote for Trump, but I'm sick and tired of the media circus, they should just let him do his thing". Its counter productive, I truly think he will get a second term, if nothing else, because people will want to stick it to the left wing media establishment. At the end of the day, its not the scandals that brings down a president (e.g. Bill Clinton), its a poor economy (e.g. George Bush number 1). As long as the economy roars, and people feel like they are getting ahead in their lives (which has nothing to do with endless Washington scandals), they might express displeasure at the president and publically say they don't support him, but they won't vote against him.
    Last edited by moahunter; 03-12-2017 at 09:08 AM.

  42. #42
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,349

    Default

    i’m not sure what your point is here?

    unemployment is down (although interestingly enough wages are also starting to come down) in the united states but, in case you missed it in that same report, unemployment has decreased every single month in the united states for every one the last 85 months. if that’s going to be your metric, it only demonstrates how unnecessary, if not how bad, these tax cuts - and who they’re being given to - really are.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by borntohula View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    I have never seen this level of obsession from the media and political opponents about an elected official before.

    It's as if Trump's opponents still think the election campaign is still going on, or still cannot get over the fact that Donald Trump is the President of the USA or something. It's like a neurosis. Even some of my friends who never liked Donald Trump have commented that they are fatigued from the media's constant advocacy against him and don't even pay attention to it anymore.
    This is very true. I have experienced this as well with friends, family and colleagues. Members of the media that engage in these daily panic attacks do not seem to realize they may have the opposite effect.
    I have seen this as well, I was in Texas and someone said to me, "I didn't vote for Trump, but I'm sick and tired of the media circus, they should just let him do his thing". Its counter productive, I truly think he will get a second term, if nothing else, because people will want to stick it to the left wing media establishment. At the end of the day, its not the scandals that brings down a president (e.g. Bill Clinton), its a poor economy (e.g. George Bush number 1). As long as the economy roars, and people feel like they are getting ahead in their lives (which has nothing to do with endless Washington scandals), they might express displeasure at the president and publically say they don't support him, but they won't vote against him.
    Maybe, just maybe if Trump would quit sending out his daily twitter storm of lies, then the media coverage would drop in half.

    The media is reporting on the twit.


    Are you suggesting that the media, which correctly investigated Michael Flynn and he was only fired after the WP published the story, should stop reporting on the facts that Flynn pleaded guilty, same for Papadopoulos; Manafort and Gates have been charged? The FBI has a >95% conviction rate and more people will be charged.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 03-12-2017 at 10:04 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  44. #44
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Yes Hello Lady, the unemployment has been going on for 16 years before Trump and no massive tax cuts to the top 1% were necessary
    Source? The top tax rate is staying the same, the focus of the plan is corporate tax - they want to spur investment, which results in more jobs and higher wages.
    Don't hold your breath, all mouth and trousers, thats e pity tit.

  45. #45

    Default

    Hello Lady is proved once again to be wrong.


    Don't have to look far

    The liars are the Republicans



    According to analysis of the Senate bill by the Joint Committee on Taxation, American households with incomes in excess of $1 million -- a threshold Trump is almost certainly far above -- would see a tax savings of $41,819 in 2019 and $36,259 in 2017.

    And an analysis by an independent group, the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, estimated that for the top one-tenth of 1 percent of earners -- those with incomes of at least $3,439,900 -- 72 percent would see tax cuts and 28 would see a tax increase in 2018. The average tax cut for this group would be $174,620 in 2018.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...mp-fortune-no/


    Whatever happened to Trump's Contract with the American Voter which promised a 35% income tax deduction for the middle class???
    The largest tax reductions are for themiddle class. A middle-class family with two children will geta 35% tax cut.


    source
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 04-12-2017 at 09:38 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  46. #46

  47. #47

    Default

    Why Trump's tax "reform" will likely make things worse for offshoring.

    Trump’s “100 Percent Pro-America” Tax Plan Is Actually a Huge Gift to Offshorers
    The Republican plan eliminates taxes on foreign profits.


    Almost everyone agrees that the current system for taxing foreign profits doesn’t work either. Under current law, US companies can indefinitely defer paying taxes on foreign profits. That’s led to companies keeping more than $2.6 trillion abroad. Trump—fashioning himself something of an offshore profits diviner—believes there is actually more than $4 trillion held abroad. Rosenthal isn’t sure where Trump gets that number. “He just makes things up,” Rosenthal adds.


    For years, companies like Apple have been banking on Congress creating another “tax holiday” that would allow them return, or repatriate, money to the United States at a significantly reduced rate. The Obama administration proposed creating a tax holiday, and using the revenue to fund investments in US infrastructure. Both tax bills would use a 14 percent repatriation rate for the profits companies are currently hoarding in other countries. Republicans say this would lead to companies investing in US infrastructure. But in 2004, a “one-time,” 5 percent tax holiday mostly led to companies rewarding shareholders with stock buybacks and increased dividends, while laying off workers.


    Proponents of the tax holiday argue the money is “trapped” abroad. Rosenthal says that’s misleading because the profits are often deliberately shifted there. Companies could return them anytime. They just don’t want to pay the taxes.

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...to-offshorers/

  48. #48
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^lets see what happens to US economic growth... the deficit will grow but the pie will grow by more. The corporate tax reform for companies doing business internationally is going to pump billions of dollars into the US economy, all of a sudden, there is no need to leave the cash offshore in places like Ireland, in fact, there will be a penalty if they do leave cash outside the US. It directly targets Apple, Google, Pharmaceutical companies - anyone who does business outside the US will now be incentivized to bring the money home.
    Most of those same companies have massive piles of cash already sitting in the US, and they aren't investing it. The only thing you'll see happen is an increase in dividends and/or share buybacks. Which do nothing to stimulate economic growth.

  49. #49

    Default

    Give big tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and make the people on Medicare and Medicade pay for it. Of course, spending on the military goes up as well. It's the Republican way.

    Paul Ryan Admits the GOP Is Going to Slash Entitlements to Fund Tax Bill
    The GOP’s trillion dollar tax cut will be paid for with Medicare cuts—and Trump’s apparently onboard.

    House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said Wednesday that congressional Republicans will aim next year to reduce spending on both federal health care and anti-poverty programs, citing the need to reduce America’s deficit.


    “We’re going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit,” Ryan said during an appearance on Ross Kaminsky’s talk radio show. “… Frankly, it’s the health care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt, so we spend more time on the health care entitlements — because that’s really where the problem lies, fiscally speaking.”

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...fund-tax-bill/

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^lets see what happens to US economic growth... the deficit will grow but the pie will grow by more. The corporate tax reform for companies doing business internationally is going to pump billions of dollars into the US economy, all of a sudden, there is no need to leave the cash offshore in places like Ireland, in fact, there will be a penalty if they do leave cash outside the US. It directly targets Apple, Google, Pharmaceutical companies - anyone who does business outside the US will now be incentivized to bring the money home.
    Most of those same companies have massive piles of cash already sitting in the US, and they aren't investing it. The only thing you'll see happen is an increase in dividends and/or share buybacks. Which do nothing to stimulate economic growth.
    Republican Dungeons & Dragons


  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Give big tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and make the people on Medicare and Medicade pay for it. Of course, spending on the military goes up as well. It's the Republican way.

    Paul Ryan Admits the GOP Is Going to Slash Entitlements to Fund Tax Bill
    The GOP’s trillion dollar tax cut will be paid for with Medicare cuts—and Trump’s apparently onboard.

    House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said Wednesday that congressional Republicans will aim next year to reduce spending on both federal health care and anti-poverty programs, citing the need to reduce America’s deficit.


    “We’re going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit,” Ryan said during an appearance on Ross Kaminsky’s talk radio show. “… Frankly, it’s the health care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt, so we spend more time on the health care entitlements — because that’s really where the problem lies, fiscally speaking.”

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...fund-tax-bill/
    It also seems to be part of the Republican plan to indirectly try destroy Obamacare, when they couldn't do it directly. I don't think Trump realizes how many of his supporters benefit from and depend on the various government supported health care programs.

  52. #52

    Default

    Hell, I'm pretty sure many of his supporters benefit from & depend on various government supported social programs including health care while simultaneously voting in people expressly devoted to disassembling said programs.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  53. #53
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Hell, I'm pretty sure many of his supporters benefit from & depend on various government supported social programs including health care while simultaneously voting in people expressly devoted to disassembling said programs.
    If you're in that sort of position, then it takes a special kind of dumb to vote for those kinds of policies.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  54. #54
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,493

    Default

    ^ that's a royal "you're", btw.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  55. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^lets see what happens to US economic growth... the deficit will grow but the pie will grow by more. The corporate tax reform for companies doing business internationally is going to pump billions of dollars into the US economy, all of a sudden, there is no need to leave the cash offshore in places like Ireland, in fact, there will be a penalty if they do leave cash outside the US. It directly targets Apple, Google, Pharmaceutical companies - anyone who does business outside the US will now be incentivized to bring the money home.
    Most of those same companies have massive piles of cash already sitting in the US, and they aren't investing it. The only thing you'll see happen is an increase in dividends and/or share buybacks. Which do nothing to stimulate economic growth.
    Most of those same companies are owned by Pension funds, if dividends or share buybacks increase, it will provide capital into those funds that will need to be reinvested. I wouldn't underestimate how powerful a change it will be when the US now transitions to a territorial tax system similar to Canada, billions if not trillions of dollars has been locked offshore, that now has to come home (or face penalties).

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^lets see what happens to US economic growth... the deficit will grow but the pie will grow by more. The corporate tax reform for companies doing business internationally is going to pump billions of dollars into the US economy, all of a sudden, there is no need to leave the cash offshore in places like Ireland, in fact, there will be a penalty if they do leave cash outside the US. It directly targets Apple, Google, Pharmaceutical companies - anyone who does business outside the US will now be incentivized to bring the money home.
    Most of those same companies have massive piles of cash already sitting in the US, and they aren't investing it. The only thing you'll see happen is an increase in dividends and/or share buybacks. Which do nothing to stimulate economic growth.
    Most of those same companies are owned by Pension funds, if dividends or share buybacks increase, it will provide capital into those funds that will need to be reinvested. I wouldn't underestimate how powerful a change it will be when the US now transitions to a territorial tax system similar to Canada, billions if not trillions of dollars has been locked offshore, that now has to come home (or face penalties).
    Read this Moa, more from the article I linked to above.

    Trump’s “100 Percent Pro-America” Tax Plan Is Actually a Huge Gift to Offshorers

    blog post provides a more detailed explanation of how that works.) In theory, the guardrail would lead to companies paying a 10 percent tax when they shift profits to tax havens, but not when they actually make things abroad. In practice, the guardrail allows companies to shelter more money in tax havens when they build factories and other physical assets abroad—offering new tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas.


    Either way, 10 percent is still half of what they would have paid if they hadn’t tried to game the system. Clausing argues that’s a clear sign Republicans are favoring foreign profits. Another is that Republicans’ aren’t using a territorial tax model that requires companies to pay a minimum rate in every country they operate in. Instead, the bill only considers whether they pay 10 percent abroad, on average. That’s an easy loophole to exploit. If Ford has a factory in Japan, it pays a corporate tax rate of about 30 percent. Ford could then shift intangible assets from the United States to a tax haven like Bermuda and still be paying more than 10 percent on a global basis. Clausing tells Mother Jones that it’s “well-known that a per-country minimum tax would be more effective and I think that’s why they didn’t do it.”

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...to-offshorers/

  57. #57

    Default

    ^So says a left wing media outlet, I can assure you that Canadian companies with US subsidiaries US aren't viewing these rule changes as a gift - its only favorable if you invest heavily in the US with equiy. That's exactly what the Republicans what to spur on, and its going to happen. I am sure though when the stock exchange soars, and GDP growth goes up, you will somehow claim its all Obama's doing...

    Canada has had a territorial tax systems for decades now - it means Canadian companies can compete internationally, and bring their profits home. The US now has a similar system. The previous system encouraged companies to keep money offshore in permanent deferral where it would never be taxed, the authors above don't really understand that though but rather are focused on the theoretical tax if it had been brought home under the old system (which never happened as it would kill a companies ETR, and prevent them from being able to compete offshore).
    Last edited by moahunter; 07-12-2017 at 04:50 PM.

  58. #58

    Default

    Says the guy who believes that "trickle down economics" works wonders.

    Or, in the words of Senator Chuck Grassley - "I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it's on booze or women or movies."

    Or your belief that we shouldn't help the homeless because they're all perfectly happy as they are.

  59. #59
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,444

    Default

    Here you go moahunter, a link from another "left wing media outlet" (that's sarcasm): https://www.economist.com/news/unite...profits-earned

    THE White House has long promised to fund tax cuts by scrapping unspecified loopholes and deductions. As Congress fills in the blanks, there is one source of revenue that looks all but certain to be tapped: the staggering pile of cash America’s firms keep in foreign subsidiaries, which totalled $2.6trn in 2015, according to an estimate by the Joint Committee on Taxation. (The president says the figure is $3trn-5trn today.) Unfortunately, this would probably result in a windfall for shareholders, with few gains for anyone else.

    Firms keep profits offshore primarily to avoid paying corporate tax, which is levied only when money is repatriated (monies paid to foreign governments are knocked off the bill). As untaxed profits have piled up, politicians from both parties have eyed them greedily. Hillary Clinton once hoped to start an infrastructure bank with money raised from firms’ foreign cash.

    Getting firms to bring more money home has been tried before. In 2004 Congress enacted a tax holiday to that end. Firms were charged a bargain rate of 5.25%, instead of the usual 35%, on repatriated profits. The law’s advocates said it would spark an investment boom, despite warnings from President George W. Bush’s economic advisers that none would materialise. The wonks were right. According to the best available study, repatriations did not increase domestic investment or employment. Instead, each of the $312bn brought back to America was associated with a payout to shareholders of 60-92 cents. Regulations designed to stop such payouts were ineffective.

    Circumstances are different this time. Republicans want more than a temporary holiday; they promise a switch to a “territorial” tax system, like those found in the rest of the rich world. That means taxing only profits earned at home, removing the incentive to stash away foreign earnings in the first place. Still, making the switch means deciding what to do with the cash accumulated overseas under the old system. The effect of bringing it home would probably be the same as in 2004. Yet the president says that repatriations would “spur billions of dollars in new investments in our struggling communities”.

    There are three reasons for scepticism. First, firms are not short of cash to invest. In the S&P 500, the ten firms with the biggest foreign bank balances, totalling $683bn, already have $153bn to hand onshore. It is unlikely that filling domestic coffers further would encourage more investment, given that the same firms returned $138bn to shareholders in dividends and buy-backs over the past year. Repatriation alone would not suddenly make investments more attractive than such payouts.

    Second, almost half of the cash firms hold in foreign subsidiaries is already denominated in dollars, according to a survey from 2011. These funds are probably sitting in American bank accounts. (Such deposits do not count as repatriations for tax purposes.) They already support bank loans, and hence investment, in America.
    Finally, to the extent that firms do buy dollars to bring profits home, they will push up the value of the greenback. A stronger dollar would be bad for the manufacturers who are close to Mr Trump’s heart. It would also tend to increase the trade deficit, which he deplores.

    In any event, the low tax rates Republicans and some Democrats want to levy on repatriated cash make little sense. In 2016 Republicans in the House of Representatives proposed a rate of just 8.75%; Mr Trump’s plans have suggested a 10% levy. If firms are forced to repatriate cash, there is an argument for a discount from 35%, says Alan Viard of the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank, because firms would lose the benefit of putting off the bill indefinitely. But go too low and the government would just be giving shareholders an unexpected payday.

    A higher charge would help pay for tax cuts on future earnings—a policy which could spark new investment. It would also avoid rewarding tax-avoidance strategies. A recent study by scholars at Stanford University and the University of Chicago found that firms began stashing significant amounts of cash overseas at the same time as Congress started debating a second repatriation tax holiday in 2011.
    The main thing that past Republican corporate tax giveaways have resulted in are bubbles and busts. Both the savings and loan crisis in the late 80's and the financial crisis in 2007/8 were in large part sparked by Republican tax cuts and regulation roll-backs several years before. I can hardly wait for the next one.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 08-12-2017 at 02:19 PM.

  60. #60

    Default

    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  61. #61

    Default

    ^^Do some more learning on it. US is moving to a tax system like Canada, which is modeled on territorial systems like France, and the Netherlands. Those systems work very well - it allows companies to compete, and they don't have to leave capital offshore in permanent deferral to protect their financial statements effective tax rate. I'm not surprised an Economist writer, a British news paper, might not understand it, the US has a tax system modeled on the UK (which is also going territorial over time). Its not a good system, but it probably hurts the pride of some Brits to see the US moving to what exists, and works very well, in Canada (its why Burger King became Canadian through an inversion) and Europe.

    Only six other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a group of the 34 most highly developed nations in the world, employ a worldwide system for taxing their multinational businesses: Chile, Greece, Ireland, Israel, South Korea, and Mexico.[4] The other 27 have mostly territorial systems achieved through the exemption method.


    ...

    Supporters of territorial taxation routinely argue that the U.S. needs such a reform to allow businesses to repatriate their foreign earnings to invest domestically. They use the same justification to support a repatriation holiday that would absolve U.S. businesses of paying tax that they previously accrued on foreign-source income. While there is certainly nothing wrong with businesses bringing more income back to the U.S., eliminating the lockout effect in which businesses keep foreign earning abroad to avoid U.S. tax alone will not spur job creation and wage growth because it is backward-looking.[18] However, changing to a territorial system on future profits will unlock investment at home and abroad that the current worldwide system is holding back. That new investment will improve the efficiency and competitiveness of U.S. firms and spur U.S. job creation and wage growth.

    The U.S. is far behind the rest of the world in territorial taxation. Sticking with the antiquated and harmful worldwide system is hurting job creation and suppressing wages for U.S. workers. The sooner the U.S. catches up, the sooner American workers and savers will reap the benefits of updating to a 21st-century system of taxing businesses.
    http://www.heritage.org/taxes/report...ges-us-workers
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-12-2017 at 02:37 PM.

  62. #62

    Default

    The GOP keeps trotting out the "Highest tax rate" nonsense but can you show me one corporation that actually pays that? There's so many deductions and loopholes that major corporations often pay less thax than their individual employees.



    FACT CHECK: Does The U.S. Have The Highest Corporate Tax Rate In The World?

    The U.S. is still toward the top of the spectrum, but it's nowhere near the ultra-high level (relative to other countries) that the statutory rate is at.


    When many politicians talk about overhauling the tax code, both on the corporate and income side, they talk about this discrepancy between effective rates and statutory rates — the phrase often used is "broaden the base, lower the rates" (or some configuration thereof). The idea is to lower the statutory rates but close some of the loopholes that push those effective rates so far from the statutory rates.


    One other way to put corporate tax rates in perspective: the total size of corporate revenue. That has fallen off over time.


    And on this measure, U.S. corporate taxation isn't all that big compared with other countries'. As of 2014, U.S. corporate tax revenues were at around 2.2 percent of the GDP. The OECD average was 2.8 percent.

    https://www.npr.org/2017/08/07/54179...e-in-the-world
    And just as an example

    27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...axes/81399094/

  63. #63

    Default

    ^which is partly why the republican reforms are closing so many of those loopholes, a lot of US companies paying no US tax today, will soon be paying tax. That article uses a horrible methodology by the way, tax expense (which includes deferred taxes) doesn't correlate very closely with cash taxes paid.
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-12-2017 at 02:48 PM.

  64. #64

    Default

    Nonsense, if you'd actually read the studies. It's going to be a windfall for the companies and do nothing to "bring home" offshore money. It's about as effective at meaningful reform as Reagan's Trickle Down.

  65. #65

    Default

    ^OK, well you tell Trudeau to change Canada away from a territorial system, back to what the US has (pre these reforms) if you think its nonesense (you will see Canadian HQ's leaving Canada almost overnight, taking head office jobs with them). Its certainly ironic that many of the people criticizing these reforms live in countries that implemented them long ago (or always had them).

  66. #66

    Default

    If our system is so superior, why haven't American companies been flooding over the border?

    Companies will invest in things that they think will get them more money, primarily automation and/or moving production offshore. Simply having more money in their accounts won't do anything for investment. They have to be encouraged to invest it. Which is what high tax rates used to do. Use it or lose it. The current workers won't see any of it.

  67. #67

    Default

    "You're all wrong" says the man who believes tax cuts pay for themselves & that trickle down economics works.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  68. #68

    Default

    Too bad these people didn't lose their personal jets.

    GOP tax bill would end deduction for wildfire and earthquake victims — but not recent hurricane victims


    The House Republican tax bill would eliminate the deduction for personal losses from wildfires, earthquakes and other natural disasters, but keep the break for victims of the recent severe hurricanes.


    If the bill becomes law, the deduction would disappear next year, but would be available for victims of the massive wildfires that struck Northern California last month — as long as they can figure out their uninsured losses and include them on their 2017 tax return.


    The legislation specifically repeals the deduction for personal casualty losses. The Internal Revenue Service describes casualty losses as including those from “natural disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and earthquakes. It can also include losses from fires, accidents, thefts or vandalism.”

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...107-story.html

  69. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    If our system is so superior, why haven't American companies been flooding over the border?
    They have, e.g. Burger King inversion, its HQ went from the US to Canada. US companies have been inverting for over a decade now to put the HQ offshore (in places like Singapore), because of the stupidity of their international tax system. These reforms merely help the US to catch up to 27 of the 34 OECD countries that have territorial corporate tax systems.

    But sure, if you, like Marcel don't agree with me, please go lobby the government of Canada, and ask them to end Canada's territorial tax system and replace it with an archaic English / US based system, for your anti-trickle down system. You would get laughed out of town by any respected tax professional, and by the Liberal party officials, because its critical to maintaining HQ's in Canada.
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-12-2017 at 03:21 PM.

  70. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    If our system is so superior, why haven't American companies been flooding over the border?

    Companies will invest in things that they think will get them more money, primarily automation and/or moving production offshore. Simply having more money in their accounts won't do anything for investment. They have to be encouraged to invest it. Which is what high tax rates used to do. Use it or lose it. The current workers won't see any of it.
    The US tax system seems to provide an incentive to keep profits earned outside the US, outside of the country, rather than repatriate. I am not sure if any amnesty or holiday is required, just an adjustment to the US system. In any event making a US citizen that has lived outside of the US for 25 years, has citizenship in another country (like Canada) and no income or assets in the US file US forms on all their overseas assets is really just insanity. It is one of the reasons for the big increase in US citizens renouncing their citizenship. People should be taxed where they live, work and consume government services, which is the territoriality concept, not based on where happen to have been born, but have not ties to.

    If you leave a country, why should you have to file tax forms with it for the rest of your life?

  71. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Nonsense, if you'd actually read the studies. It's going to be a windfall for the companies and do nothing to "bring home" offshore money. It's about as effective at meaningful reform as Reagan's Trickle Down.

    Companies will not reinvest and give higher wages. They instead will get bigger bonuses, stock buybacks and larger dividends. The money will stay with the 1 percent and the only trickle down is the rest of the people they pizz on.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  72. #72
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    If our system is so superior, why haven't American companies been flooding over the border?
    They have, e.g. Burger King inversion, its HQ went from the US to Canada. US companies have been inverting for over a decade now to put the HQ offshore (in places like Singapore), because of the stupidity of their international tax system. These reforms merely help the US to catch up to 27 of the 34 OECD countries that have territorial corporate tax systems.

    But sure, if you, like Marcel don't agree with me, please go lobby the government of Canada, and ask them to end Canada's territorial tax system and replace it with an archaic English / US based system, for your anti-trickle down system. You would get laughed out of town by any respected tax professional, and by the Liberal party officials, because its critical to maintaining HQ's in Canada.
    what are you talking about???

    the burger king "inversion" re their parent's merger/acquisition of tim horton's is far from representative of any flood of such activity coming to canada and probably related more to getting approval of the takeover than it was a reflection of "advantageous canadian tax treatment".

    never mind attracting the occasional paper hq to canada, i'd be happy if we could reform our tax system so that canadian entities such as power corporation would keep their hq's and "operating subsidiaries" here:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/11...rt_a_23278351/

    "The vast majority of the largest publicly-traded companies in Canada collectively have more than 1,000 subsidiaries in offshore tax havens, according to a new report from Canadians for Tax Fairness.


    Of the 60 largest companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, all but four have subsidiaries in known tax havens, the report stated."

    http://www.taxfairness.ca/sites/taxf...or_release.pdf
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  73. #73

    Default

    ^you are out of your depth on this one Ken. A huge part of the reasoning behind the Burger King inversion was because it placed the foreign earnings of the group internationally into the Canadian territorial exemption system. That's good for Canada at expense of US - the HQ moved to Canada (albeit sadly in that case, more notional than real). I don't know why you think Trumps move to make the US tax system more like the Canadian one (and 27 of 34 OECD countries), is the wrong move, other than lack of knowledge of how these tax systems work. All the US system did, was ensure nobody ever brought profits home. Canadian companies regularly do repatriate cash unlike US companies (I have seen it throughout my career), and its because there is minimal penalty for doing so (just foreign withholding tax).

    As to the use of tax haven's by Canadian companies - its not generally about saving Canadian tax (at least, with respect to multinational corporations), its about efficiently being able to bring profits back home to Canada. The less foreign earnings are taxed overseas (for example by characterizing investments as debt rather than equity through intermediary countries), the more that will flow to Canadian shareholders who pay tax on their dividends (or often one day in their pension withdraws), which helps the Canadian economy. The Canadian tax system is designed to encourage companies to invest overseas, with no penalty for doing so (if you operate in a country that has a 10% tax rate, you are taxed the same as local businesses at 10%) - that's a good thing, it allows the head office in Canada to grow bigger than it would, if it was just a Canadian company, and it allows Canadian business to compete internationally without having to trap the profits overseas.
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-12-2017 at 05:10 PM.

  74. #74
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^you are out of your depth on this one Ken. A huge part of the reasoning behind the Burger King inversion was because it placed the foreign earnings of the group internationally into the Canadian territorial exemption system. That's good for Canada at expense of US - the HQ moved to Canada (albeit sadly in that case, more notional than real). I don't know why you think Trumps move to make the US tax system more like the Canadian one (and 27 of 34 OECD countries), is the wrong move, other than lack of knowledge of how these tax systems work. All the US system did, was ensure nobody ever brought profits home. Canadian companies regularly do repatriate cash unlike US companies (I have seen it throughout my career), and its because there is minimal penalty for doing so (just foreign withholding tax).

    As to the use of tax haven's by Canadian companies - its not generally about saving Canadian tax (at least, with respect to multinational corporations, as opposed to small businesses), its about efficiently being able to bring profits back home to Canada. The less foreign earnings are taxed overseas, the more that will flow to Canadian shareholders who pay tax on their dividends, which helps the Canadian economy.
    emphasis added...

    thanks for the best end of the week laugh generator that i've seen for a very long time.

    i hope you're not planning to run for office because i'm sure whoever is in charge would have a difficult time choosing between whether to give you the planning and infrastructure portfolio or finance and taxation. [insert emoticon of your choice here].
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  75. #75

    Default

    ^It might be funny to you, but its exactly how the Canadian tax corporate tax system is designed, and how most countries are today. You have offense (reducing foreign taxes Canadian corporations have to pay overseas, as any foreign tax paid ultimately reduces the cash back to Canada / Canadian tax take), and defense (ensuring foreign companies operating in Canada pay their fair share of tax). Exemption systems provide the offense, and inbound tax rules that restrict interest deductions and tax distributions provide the defense.

    When Paul Martin's families shipping company used Barbados as intermediary, it wasn't to reduce Canadian tax, which is why the government wasn't concerned about it, it was perfectly legitimate (I expect). That's very different though from someone trying to hide/stash money offshore - that is wrong, and its illegal.
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-12-2017 at 05:18 PM.

  76. #76
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^It might be funny to you, but its exactly how the Canadian tax corporate tax system is designed, and how most countries are today. You have offense (reducing foreign taxes Canadian corporations have to pay overseas, as any foreign tax paid ultimately reduces the cash back to Canada / Canadian tax take), and defense (ensuring foreign companies operating in Canada pay their fair share of tax). Exemption systems provide the offense, and inbound tax rules that restrict interest deductions and tax distributions provide the defense.

    When Paul Martin's families shipping company used Barbados as intermediary, it wasn't to reduce Canadian tax, which is why the government wasn't concerned about it, it was perfectly legitimate (I expect). That's very different though from someone trying to hide/stash money offshore - that is wrong, and its illegal.
    the intent within canada is that the total of corporate taxes paid plus the tax paid on dividend income is roughly equivalent to the tax that would be paid if it was all earned as personal income.

    when the corporate tax paid to canada is reduced to zero, even though taxes are paid on the dividends, the net loss to canada is made up by the rest of canada's taxpayers. power corporation's use of barbados as an "intermediary" as you like to put it is completely to avoid paying the corporate tax. if it was any other way, then there would be no incentive to use tax havens or to structure your corporation in and around them. is it legal? sure it is. and i suppose that makes it legitimate. but it doesn't make it fair and it certainly isn't impartial in terms of it's impact on canadian government tax revenue.

    as for the intent of tax treaties, their real intent is supposed to be to avoid double taxation in either direction, not to enable and facilitate tax avoidance at either end. you need to avoid confusing the two, just as you need to avoid confusing the need to pay taxes in multiple jurisdictions because you're doing business in all of them and moving income from one jurisdiction to another simply to avoid paying taxes in any of them.

    ps. i would bet that most of those cash repatriations to canada you mentioned were capitalizing on currency fluctuations and not from any real desire to pay their fair share of canadian taxes.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  77. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ps. i would bet that most of those cash repatriations to canada you mentioned were capitalizing on currency fluctuations and not from any real desire to pay their fair share of canadian taxes.
    Most companies hate having excess cash on the books, especially in foreign subsidiaries (Apple is a bit of an outlier). Normally management wants to repay debt (improve credit rating), increase dividends or stock repurchase, or invest in new capital projects (typically what management likes best). Those things ultimately lead to more local tax (versus cash invested offshore). US companies have basically been forced to leave money offshore reinvested in foreign projects, not because they want to, but because the tax cost and financial statement impact is too high to repatriate. By the US moving to a tax system closer to Canada, that will no longer be the case.
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-12-2017 at 06:02 PM.

  78. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ps. i would bet that most of those cash repatriations to canada you mentioned were capitalizing on currency fluctuations and not from any real desire to pay their fair share of canadian taxes.
    Most companies hate having excess cash on the books, especially in foreign subsidiaries (Apple is a bit of an outlier). Normally management wants to repay debt (improve credit rating), increase dividends or stock repurchase, or invest in new capital projects (typically what management likes best). Those things ultimately lead to more local tax (versus cash invested offshore). US companies have basically been forced to leave money offshore reinvested in foreign projects, not because they want to, but because the tax cost and financial statement impact is too high to repatriate. By the US moving to a tax system closer to Canada, that will no longer be the case.
    Ironic timing isn’t it.

  79. #79
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ps. i would bet that most of those cash repatriations to canada you mentioned were capitalizing on currency fluctuations and not from any real desire to pay their fair share of canadian taxes.
    Most companies hate having excess cash on the books, especially in foreign subsidiaries (Apple is a bit of an outlier). Normally management wants to repay debt (improve credit rating), increase dividends or stock repurchase, or invest in new capital projects (typically what management likes best). Those things ultimately lead to more local tax (versus cash invested offshore). US companies have basically been forced to leave money offshore reinvested in foreign projects, not because they want to, but because the tax cost and financial statement impact is too high to repatriate. By the US moving to a tax system closer to Canada, that will no longer be the case.
    Ironic timing isn’t it.
    ironic timing or just ironic that - if moa really is correct - the top one tenth of one percent in the United States want to be taxed more like their canadian counterparts because that’s who benefits the most from their current proposed budget changes. just like that’s who really benefits the most from our system as well.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  80. #80

    Default

    Trickle Down Economics 101


















    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  81. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ironic timing or just ironic that - if moa really is correct - the top one tenth of one percent in the United States want to be taxed more like their canadian counterparts because that’s who benefits the most from their current proposed budget changes. just like that’s who really benefits the most from our system as well.
    It’s every American who owns a pension, it’s every American who works for a corporation that needs capital to expand. Let’s see what happens though - I predict the US is going to massively boom the next few years, the pie will grow, and sure, the one percent will do better, but the ninety nine percent will too. Canada will get some benefit because of our intertwined economies, but not the benefit we should. Sadly in Canada Trudeau wifh his tax reforms (which had some validity but have been horribly Implemented in a way that creates uncertainty), that are still unclear a week before they come into effect, is driving the one percent out of Canada (resulting in a one percent with far less capital to invest in this country). And while those who believe the Trudeau illogic that Canada can Robin Hood its way to make the middle class rich (it won’t happen people, Trudeau’s policies won’t get you trips to islands owned by billionaires, that only applies to his political connected pals), there will be a lot less money in Canada to pay for the social services and other benefits that taxes provide.
    Last edited by moahunter; 09-12-2017 at 08:57 AM.

  82. #82

    Default

    Let's ask Sears employees about their pension and their needs for capital to expand.

    Do McDonald's, Target, Kroger or Walmart employees get a pension and do these companies need more capital to expand? Will they get better wages and benefits Pffff!

    Most of the US population are struggling to maintain a living wage and worry about paying for or losing their healthcare.

    I feel so sorry for people I know in the US that worry 10 times more about their healthcare than we do in Canada.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 09-12-2017 at 09:06 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  83. #83

    Default

    ^the Sears pension plan I understand was about eighty percent funded. That means, that all of the employee amounts contributed are still there, all of the investments are there (and will do well if the economy does well). But, the company did not fund enough of its contribution to allow the pension to hit the annual payouts it promised. It’s still a better deal than many Canadians get in defined contribution plans, where employer mafches are typically less, and if the market returns improve could still pay out more than eighty percent of what was once promised.

    If you have a DB plan (I do, for each dollar I put in the company puts in about 1.20), it makes sense to consider how funded it is (mine is about eighty percent like the sears one), and when you do your retirement planning, consider the possibility you will only get that percent of the payout. Companies do fail, and promises they make to contribute more to pensions to meet payouts will go with that failure, but the money that was put in is there and safe, and it grows as companies grow.
    Last edited by moahunter; 09-12-2017 at 09:11 AM.

  84. #84

    Default

    What about McDonald's, Target, Kroger or Walmart?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  85. #85

    Default

    ^what about them? I expect they will either have defined contribution plans or defined benefit plans. Any money employees put in either one will help them in retirement whether or not the company fails. Both dB and dc plans grow faster if companies in the economy overall do better, because most companies today are mostly owned by them. Anyone cheering for the big bad evil corporations to pay more tax or earn less profits is cheering for less money in their retirement.
    Last edited by moahunter; 09-12-2017 at 09:28 AM.

  86. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ironic timing or just ironic that - if moa really is correct - the top one tenth of one percent in the United States want to be taxed more like their canadian counterparts because that’s who benefits the most from their current proposed budget changes. just like that’s who really benefits the most from our system as well.
    It’s every American who owns a pension, it’s every American who works for a corporation that needs capital to expand. Let’s see what happens though - I predict the US is going to massively boom the next few years, the pie will grow, and sure, the one percent will do better, but the ninety nine percent will too. Canada will get some benefit because of our intertwined economies, but not the benefit we should. Sadly in Canada Trudeau wifh his tax reforms (which had some validity but have been horribly Implemented in a way that creates uncertainty), that are still unclear a week before they come into effect, is driving the one percent out of Canada (resulting in a one percent with far less capital to invest in this country). And while those who believe the Trudeau illogic that Canada can Robin Hood its way to make the middle class rich (it won’t happen people, Trudeau’s policies won’t get you trips to islands owned by billionaires, that only applies to his political connected pals), there will be a lot less money in Canada to pay for the social services and other benefits that taxes provide.
    Only some of the money abroad will return as some of it will be there for actual business purposes. But say a trillion or more actually comes back to the US. It’s just not significant. Interest rates pushed down by the US Fed allowed far more to happen. Maturing corporate debt was rolled at far lower costs. (Allowed a whole lot of cash to be redirected.)

    In some sectors like utilities, trillions of added debt was taken on to and some of it may actually have been used for actual business purposes. However around $4 trillion went to mergers and the like. (That alone is two to three times more than the offshore potential.)

    Share buy backs probably consumed capital sourced through added debt enabled by lower interest rates. Buybacks are great for shareholders but it’s just changing the allocation of value and not the value itself. A lot of the financial engineeering is great for shareholders but rising share prices don’t immediately translate into added jobs and services and factories. The 1% don’t consume more because their portfolio doubled. In fact, they may rebalance and diversify more offshore when their US holdings rise in value as perceived vslue increaes drive ip sharepricesvand thd smart money sells and reallocates.

    The irony to the tax plan is that it’s just throwing a bit more fuel on a fire created by low interest rates. A debt fueled fire that might start going out and they are desperate to keep raging. The $30 trillion or so corp debt impact is already built in to share prices and the economy and share prices while any rising interest rate risk may not be reflected on prices.

    Then there’s the trillions in USD denominated foreign reserves that will drive acquisition of US goods or assets of countries like China decide to reduce or limit their USD exposure.

    The offshore cash is just a drop in the bucket.
    Last edited by KC; 09-12-2017 at 10:31 AM.

  87. #87

    Default

    A one page "analysis" that doesn't show any of the math.

    Trump’s Treasury admits tax plan won’t pay for itself


    "The analysis shows that only half of the growth will come from the trickle-down effect of the tax cuts. The other half would be spurred by a “combination of regulatory reform, infrastructure development, and welfare reform.” This means that in order for the tax plan to make up for its estimated $1.5 trillion addition to the federal debt, Congress will have to pass sweeping infrastructure legislation, cuts to entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, and other unspecified regulatory reform.
    The report also assumes that the economy will experience nearly 3 percent in growth over the next 10 years—that’s a level of growth the U.S. hasn’t seen since 2005. “We acknowledge that some economists predict different growth rates,” Treasury wrote in the document."

    https://www.rawstory.com/2017/12/trumps-treasury-admits-tax-plan-wont-pay-for-itself/

  88. #88

    Default

    Trump announced today that his administration is guiding NASA to put a man on the moon for a long term Mars project.

    I wonder if they have a $100+ Billion dollar project in their tax budget plans? Or will they fund this by cutting health care programs?

    From the Fake News reporting on the Fake President with the Fake Hair. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/11/trum...moon-mars.html
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  89. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    A one page "analysis" that doesn't show any of the math.
    That's twice as long as the half-page of bullet points that was Trump's original "tax plan."
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  90. #90
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Trump announced today that his administration is guiding NASA to put a man on the moon for a long term Mars project.

    I wonder if they have a $100+ Billion dollar project in their tax budget plans? Or will they fund this by cutting health care programs?

    From the Fake News reporting on the Fake President with the Fake Hair. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/11/trum...moon-mars.html
    perhaps the donald is consulting with boy-wonder on how to create programs and budgets that just balance themselves regardless of how much you spend or how little you collect?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  91. #91

    Default

    You can always suck more blood out of the average tax payer
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  92. #92
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,583

    Default

    ^^Were Trump to actually be consulting with Trudeau, these reckless tax cuts would not be going ahead.

    Even before the tax cuts, the US government is in a much, much worse budgetary position than the Canadian government.

    The Canadian government ended the last fiscal year with a $17.8 billion deficit, and is running a $5.9 billion deficit for the first 6 months of the current fiscal year ($CAD).

    The US government ended its most recent budget year with a $666 billion deficit, and is running a $198 billion deficit for the first 2 months of the current fiscal year ($US).

    Sources: Finance Canada, Congressional Budget Office

  93. #93
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    You can always suck more blood out of the average tax payer
    given that there is no "average tax payer", i don't think that's true. and the amount of special interest exemptions that are built in (and that are weighted to the top end and not the entry end or middle of the system) simply magnifies that.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  94. #94
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^Were Trump to actually be consulting with Trudeau, these reckless tax cuts would not be going ahead.

    Even before the tax cuts, the US government is in a much, much worse budgetary position than the Canadian government.

    The Canadian government ended the last fiscal year with a $17.8 billion deficit, and is running a $5.9 billion deficit for the first 6 months of the current fiscal year ($CAD).

    The US government ended its most recent budget year with a $666 billion deficit, and is running a $198 billion deficit for the first 2 months of the current fiscal year ($US).

    Sources: Finance Canada, Congressional Budget Office
    i think you're comparing apples to oranges... you need to cumulatively compare federal and provincial debt in canada with federal and state debt in the u.s. if you do, you'll find per capita debts to be a lot closer than you might think and you'll probably find that canadian levels are rising faster.

    but it's a mug's game of a discussion regardless trying to decide which side of the border is being more foolish than the other...

    regardless of which side of the border you're on, they're still playing three card monte with our tax dollars and one day most of us will have to pay the piper for it. unfortunately, most of us won't include the trump's and their friends on one side of the border and it won't include those with names ending in "eau" and their friends on the other side.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  95. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    You can always suck more blood out of the average tax payer
    given that there is no "average tax payer", i don't think that's true. and the amount of special interest exemptions that are built in (and that are weighted to the top end and not the entry end or middle of the system) simply magnifies that.
    Statistically speaking, in any sample size there is an average and a median number. Metaphorically there is always an average Joe and Jane taxpayer.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  96. #96
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,583

    Default

    ^^Comparing Canada federal government deficits to US federal government deficits is apples to apples.

    Let's look now at an apples to apples debt comparison. According to the OECD, the total net debt of all orders of government in 2016 (financial assets minus financial liabilities) was as follows. US total government net debt clocks in at 101% of US GDP. Canadian total government net debt clocks in at 47% of Canadian GDP.

    See here: https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-go...ndicator-chart

  97. #97

    Default

    Yup, niacin. Vitamin B. No R&D needed here. Just greed.
    A Pharma Company Raised the Price of a Daily Vitamin by 800 Percent

    Avondale Pharmaceuticals recently acquired Niacor, a prescription version of niacin, and increased the price of a bottle of 100 tablets from $32.46 to $295, FT reports. The company was formed in August and has no online presence, but state records show that it is based in Alabama. Acrogen Pharmaceuticals, which is the registered agent for Avondale, did not respond to a request by Gizmodo for comment.

    https://gizmodo.com/a-pharma-company...-by-1821217649

  98. #98
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^Comparing Canada federal government deficits to US federal government deficits is apples to apples.

    Let's look now at an apples to apples debt comparison. According to the OECD, the total net debt of all orders of government in 2016 (financial assets minus financial liabilities) was as follows. US total government net debt clocks in at 101% of US GDP. Canadian total government net debt clocks in at 47% of Canadian GDP.

    See here: https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-go...ndicator-chart
    thanks for the link - i will have to spend some more time there...

    in the meantime, a quick glance at one of their other charts shows general government debt as a percentage of gdp as 125% for the us and 116% for canada - not so very different.

    damn statistics eh?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  99. #99

    Default

    Obama care is more popular than ever with a 57% approval rating.
    Trump approval rating 37%
    GOP tax plan has a 29% approval rating
    Congressional approval rating 14%

    Obama's plan is more popular than even a purported tax cut bill and even more than the President and Congress who support it, COMBINED!
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  100. #100

    Default

    McCain returns to Arizona, won't vote on GOP tax bill: report
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •