American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Tax increases on input costs such as property tax also reduce profits. It’s nice to think a business owner can just turn up the volume to 11 to make up for reduced margins but it doesn’t work that way.

Apologies, I conflated volume with demand. Increased demand can offset increased costs. I get that increased taxes don't necessarily equal increased demand of your product but the idea of reducing prices to increase demand isn't a new concept.

Again though I come back to the margins. How many healthy businesses are operating on such thin margins that an increase in taxes is going to necessitate a matching price increase (restaurant industry notwithstanding), especially if doing so hurts their market share?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

"Let's tell them that he is an asset, so they think that we are just making it up to #### with them. That way, they will fail to realize that he is in fact our asset"

What if he got hit by a car before he was activated? There must be a second one...

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Wormius

What if he got hit by a car before he was activated? There must be a second one...

The car would lose

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The goal, for the owners of any corporation, is to earn a profit, net of taxes.

If you raise taxes, they need to raise prices to compensate (or have reduced earnings). Keep raising taxes, and they are forced to raise prices beyond being competitive, or not make any net profit.

Either way, you've taxed them out of existence.

The best you could hope for is that you've created hyper inflation.

I'm gathering that your argument is that they could take their investment elsewhere and make more money? Because for an owner operator, their salary wouldn't count as profits, so we are exclusively talking about capitals gains from investments.

All things being equal in tax policy this should effect the profitability of any investment equally, meaning it does not change what is / isn't a good place to invest your money. That goes back to my argument about tax complexity giving large corporations implicit advantages, by having a higher level of expertise dedicated to tax avoidance. Lowering taxes doesn't really change that problem. Lower corporate taxes to help small businesses fend off the steady march of mega corporations is like using a hammer to fix a chip in your windshield. Because profits are required to pay business tax, the tax doesn't effect anyone except the end consumer as long as there is a level playing field. Obviously you don't want to tax corporations to the point that they can't pass their costs onto customers, but the real problem is not every corporation is passing on the same costs.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Tax increases on input costs such as property tax also reduce profits. It’s nice to think a business owner can just turn up the volume to 11 to make up for reduced margins but it doesn’t work that way.

We are talking about corporate taxes, which to a point have very little impact on a corporations well being, as long as distributed equitably across all industry. Obviously depending on consumers abilities to continue spending within that industry, but realistically we are talking about a 5% change in tax translating into 1% or less change in prices.

The most optimistic scenario I could come up with for a business.
Company sells $100,
Profits $20
@10% corporate tax, they pay $2 to the government
and keep $18

Change that price to $101
Profit $21
@15% corporate tax, they pay $3.15 to the government
and keep $17.85

Now if Large corporations have the ability to avoid those increases which they often do, you will either see time undercut prices, or you will see investment shift to large corporations. But that's not a tax rate problem, that's a tax policy problem.

Property taxes are completely different, you absolutely can property tax a small company out of business, because they are fixed cost regardless of the health of your business or industry, and moving to react to tax changes would be very expensive.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by edslunch

With the AZ Presidential vote going blue or purple how close is the state legislature to flipping? I assume that’s a much bigger hurdle because reasons.

Federal and state politics are very different things. At the state level you'll have five or six Republican candidates for the legislature to Democrats. And those Republicans work together to earn votes, campaigning as a block. It's really strange to see, but this is how state politics is. Republicans have a huge advantage at the state level, because they have invested at the state level. Democrats have not.

[Boreal]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...b-spy-new-book

Donald Trump was cultivated as a Russian asset over 40 years and proved so willing to parrot anti-western propaganda that there were celebrations in Moscow, a former KGB spy has told the Guardian.

“This is an example where people were recruited when they were just students and then they rose to important positions; something like that was happening with Trump,” Shvets said by phone on Monday from his home in Virginia.
Shvets, a KGB major, had a cover job as a correspondent in Washington for the Russian news agency Tass during the 1980s. He moved to the US permanently in 1993 and gained American citizenship. He works as a corporate security investigator and was a partner of Alexander Litvinenko, who was assassinated in London in 2006.
Unger describes how Trump first appeared on the Russians’ radar in 1977 when he married his first wife, Ivana Zelnickova, a Czech model. Trump became the target of a spying operation overseen by Czechoslovakia’s intelligence service in cooperation with the KGB.

The ex-major recalled: “For the KGB, it was a charm offensive. They had collected a lot of information on his personality so they knew who he was personally. The feeling was that he was extremely vulnerable intellectually, and psychologically, and he was prone to flattery.

“This is what they exploited. They played the game as if they were immensely impressed by his personality and believed this is the guy who should be the president of the United States one day: it is people like him who could change the world. They fed him these so-called active measures soundbites and it happened. So it was a big achievement for the KGB active measures at the time.”
Soon after he returned to the US, Trump began exploring a run for the Republican nomination for president and even held a campaign rally in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. On 1 September, he took out a full-page advert in the New York Times, Washington Post and Boston Globe headlined: “There’s nothing wrong with America’s Foreign Defense Policy that a little backbone can’t cure.”

Unger, the author of seven books and a former contributing editor for Vanity Fair magazine, said of Trump: “He was an asset. It was not this grand, ingenious plan that we’re going to develop this guy and 40 years later he’ll be president. At the time it started, which was around 1980, the Russians were trying to recruit like crazy and going after dozens and dozens of people.”
“Trump was the perfect target in a lot of ways: his vanity, narcissism made him a natural target to recruit. He was cultivated over a 40-year period, right up through his election.”

[rubecube]

Has anyone heard about that Trump/KGB thing? Don't think it's been posted in here yet.

[#-3]

827

Originally Posted by boreal

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...b-spy-new-book

828

Originally Posted by rubecube

has anyone heard about that trump/kgb thing? Don't think it's been posted in here yet.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by #-3

827







828

Whoosh.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Whoosh.

To be fair, you almost got me, too.

God I would have looked like an idiot. Can’t imagine actually being the guy who fell for it.

[direwolf]

Trump's impeachment lawyers are starting to abandon ship, probably to try and save their careers and reputations. Can't say I blame them.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...es-team-464017

Former President Donald Trump has lost his top impeachment lawyer just days before his trial is to begin, a person familiar with his legal strategy and two attorneys close to the team confirmed on Saturday night.

Butch Bowers, a South Carolina lawyer who was reportedly set to play a major role in the Senate’s trial of the former president, is now no longer with the team. Deborah Barbier, another South Carolina lawyer, won’t be either. The person described it as a “mutual decision” and said new names will be announced shortly.

In addition, CNN reported on Saturday night that a third member of Trump's prospective legal team, Josh Howard, was also leaving. The network reported that the ex-president had wanted his lawyers to focus on erroneous arguments of mass election fraud rather than the constitutionality of impeaching an ex-president.

Trump has had difficulty finding legal help for his second impeachment, with some of the lawyers who worked on his first trial saying they wouldn’t do the same this go around.

[Tyler]

LOL trial is on Tuesday. Dude is boned.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Tyler

LOL trial is on Tuesday. Dude is boned.

He could show up and play a kazoo with his butthole and only a couple republicans would vote to convict. He doesn’t actually need a lawyer.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Tyler

LOL trial is on Tuesday. Dude is boned.

lol

[FlameOn]

Make Attorneys Go Away!! -DJT probably

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

He could show up and play a kazoo with his butthole and only a couple republicans would vote to convict. He doesn’t actually need a lawyer.

This might be the only scenario that would actually convince me that he shouldn’t be convicted. I would ####ing love it if he did that.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Biden admin makes huge improvements in vaccine planning and distribution according to GOP Governor.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/vaccine-di...143021758.html

Who would have thought that having a plan at the federal level would show immediate dividends. Now if they can only find those 20 million missing vaccines the Trump admin says were dispatched to states!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1792753.html

[Mull]

Trump was a con-man who didn't seem to grasp the entire picture when dealing with complex issues.

However, China is a concern to me, and while Trump may of empowered China in some ways (i.e. killing the TPP) he did appear to take at least a more direct approach when dealing with them.

For example, Trump remove the USA decade old policy on restricting contacts between US officials and Taiwan. I am pretty dam cynical when it comes to Trump's actions, but its hard to imagine this move was done for any shady reason.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...ry-taiwan-war/

That said a phase 1 trade deal was signed, even though the targets have not been met.

Trumps tariffs may of hurt US more than China, although, short term consequences are hard to know if they are of use, and maybe China caved on items in the trade deal afraid of long term consequences. At the time, a bunch of the democratic candidates noted they wouldn't revoke the Trump China tariffs .

My loaded question, will Trump's work with China be considered a net positive by Americans when looked back on in future years?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mull

Trump was a con-man who didn't seem to grasp the entire picture when dealing with complex issues.

However, China is a concern to me, and while Trump may of empowered China in some ways (i.e. killing the TPP) he did appear to take at least a more direct approach when dealing with them.

For example, Trump remove the USA decade old policy on restricting contacts between US officials and Taiwan.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...ry-taiwan-war/

That said a phase 1 trade deal was signed, even though the targets have not been met.

Trumps tarrifs may of hurt US more than China, although, short term consequences are hard to m know if they are of use, and maybe China caved on items afraid of long term consequences.

My loaded question, will Trump's work with China be considered a net positive by Americans when looked back on in future years?

Seems to me you answered your own question. The policy of non-engagement with Taiwan was to keep China happy. The TPP was going to be the balancing lever in all of this, and the US was quietly going to promote Taiwan's membership in the TPP, giving them the political clout they needed in their political war with China. Trump withdrawing the US from the TPP did in both and gave China a big advantage in the region. To make matters worse, Trump started a trade war, where the US got its head caved in, negatively impacting almost all industries and especially costs to main street. Trump never thought strategically about global politics, never cared for alliances, and never thought about timeframes longer than an episode of Fox & Friends. Trump was a disaster in every way and the United States (and the world) will be feeling his incompetence for decades to come. WORST president in American history.