Taxes

Joe Biden's Misguided Attack on Tax Havens

President Joe Biden apparently thinks it's wrong for corporations to locate their headquarters in low-tax places like Bermuda, Ireland, and Switzerland. Did he learn nothing from living in Delaware?

|

Leftists are thrilled by the Biden administration's plan to stamp out the bogeyman of tax havens—low-tax jurisdictions where corporations and other investors can keep their money away from the prying hands of the government.

They'd have us believe that corporations aren't paying their "fair share" in taxes— and that punishing these scofflaws will bring worldwide benefits. In particular, congressional Democrats are now pushing a re-jiggering of the tax system as a means to fund their $2.9 trillion welfare-spending program.

"The administration's strategy involves convincing other developed countries to adopt a global minimum tax for corporations, while reshaping the United States' own tax code to stamp out the advantages companies currently get from booking their earnings in tax havens," as Slate's Jordan Weissmann explained.

Some conservatives might support this redistributionist effort given that tech companies such as Google, Facebook, and Apple are in the crosshairs. They shouldn't let frustration with those companies' content moderation policies let them jettison their long-term opposition to tax increases. After all, corporations don't really pay taxes—only consumers and workers do.

Let's dispense with the outrage about tax havens. There is nothing wrong with companies and individuals that shelter their earnings from governments, which are like organized mobs that can never seize enough revenue. One need only look at the U.S. government's $28 trillion-plus in debt to realize that its spending desires are insatiable.

If you believe that tax havens are immoral, then you should not claim any deductions on your tax bill. President Joe Biden apparently thinks it's wrong for corporations to locate their headquarters in low-tax Bermuda, Ireland, and Switzerland, yet why does his home of Delaware house so many U.S. corporate headquarters? Hint: It has nothing to do with the, er, lovely scenery around Wilmington.

California is a notorious high-tax state. In our federalist system, each state can develop its own tax policies, which is why so many corporations are moving to friendlier climes such as Texas and Utah. Such competition is a strength of the American system. A similar process works at the international level.

Tax havens provide pressure on big-spending governments to limit tax rates, and lower tax rates boost economic activity, create jobs, and incentivize investors to invest more. As economist Milton Friedman put it, "Competition among national governments in the public services they provide and in the taxes they impose is every bit as productive as competition among individuals or enterprises in the goods and services they offer for sale."

Governments propose these anti-tax-haven rules simply to keep companies from evading their tax grabs, thus allowing them to tax and spend with abandon. The main reason tax havens are good is they help corporations shield their money from the U.S. government, which already has plenty of revenues (and debt)—and needs to learn to spend it more efficiently.

Practically speaking, policies that crush tax havens are counterproductive. One prominent 2018 study by Duke University professor Juan Carlos Suárez Serrato found that an IRS rule that increased corporate tax rates for U.S.-based multinational companies had the perverse effect of causing them to lower their domestic investment and employment.

Also on a practical note, "Offshore centers allow companies and investment funds to operate internationally without having to abide by several different sets of rules and, often, pay more tax than ought to be due," noted the Institute for Economic Affairs' Philip Booth. "They make it possible for businesses to avoid the worst excesses of government largesse and crazy tax systems."

Furthermore, the Biden plan will raise taxes on reinsurance companies—insurance companies that provide insurance to other insurance companies—which simply will reduce the number of available insurance policies and raise rates on consumers.

Progressives argue that tax havens allow criminal enterprises to hide their ill-gotten loot, but the libertarian Cato Institute's Daniel Mitchell (who deserves a hat-tip for that Friedman quotation) explains that "the most comprehensive analysis of dirty money finds 28 problem jurisdictions, and only one could be considered a tax haven."

And he adds that tax havens also allow people living in oppressive regimes (such as Jews in some Middle Eastern countries and dissidents in Venezuela or Cuba) "to invest their assets offshore and keep that information hidden from venal governments."

After looking at how the U.S. government spends its money, it's hard to take seriously the claims of the tax-haven foes, such as Oxfam International: "Big business is dodging tax on an industrial scale, depriving governments across the globe of the money they need to address poverty and invest in healthcare, education, and jobs."

Oh please. If eliminating poverty were a function of the size of government tax receipts, then America (and California in particular) would have solved that problem decades ago. Those who oppose tax havens simply want the government to take more money and have more power. That's why I celebrate the wonders of offshore havens.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

NEXT: Review: No Time To Die

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

      1. Damn it, I fucked that up. Fuck Joe Biden.

        1. Fycj = Fuck you cocksucker joe
          You got it correct

            1. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Just visit this website now. Open this web…… ­­­­WorkJoin1

              1. Seriously paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

                Try now… VISIT HERE

      2. Polish spelling?

        1. Joe Biden spelling, if the burn about Delaware isn’t clue enough.

          1. “Did he learn nothing from living in Delaware?”

            He did, but he’s forgotten it now.

    1. FUCK JOE XIDEN

    2. I feel your pain, losers.

      1. Fuck Joe Friday

        1. I’m not sure which option is more disgusting.

      2. Joe was here yesterday to pitch the newest lefty-shit excuse for droolin’ Joe’s colossal fuck up:
        Yes, Trump had a plan, and yes, it was working, but Trump just wouldn’t give it to droolin’ Joe.
        And it was such a secret plan that poor, droolin’ Joe just couldn’t figger it out!
        Dunno who’s running that particular pile of shit up the flag pole, but looks like hardly anyone’s saluting.

        1. Also peppered in the, “Nobody knew it would happen” crap.

          1. Pretty sure he’s convinced his ‘arguments’ are ones we’ve just never thought of!
            The new shit-piles forever show up with the same stuff that’s been debunked since von Böhm-Bawerk, expecting we’ll yield to their superior intelligence!

    3. No, please, I don’t even want to be in the same ROOM with President Potatohead.

    4. Fuck Joe Biden.

        1. Dyslexics have more fnu.

  1. depriving governments across the globe of the money they need to address poverty and invest in healthcare, education, and jobs

    Anybody who thinks that is what governments spend the money on needs to ease up on the hallucinogenic drugs and read some serious books.

    1. It’s such a load of shit. Pretending that the only reason everyone doesn’t have everything they need is because nasty richers hide all the money. Doesn’t matter that we’ve already thrown trillions of dollars at these problems without making any real improvements. If we could just get more of rich people’s money then everything would be OK.
      How the fuck do people actually believe this shit?

      1. Repeat the big lie often enough…

      2. Well, let’s be honest. There was a time when various governments DID do effective things with tax money. Building, or subsidizing the building of, networks is one of the things that, historically, governments have been good at. Road networks. Sanitation networks. Rail networks. Telephone networks. The Net itself. The history of such efforts has been that while the networks greatly benefitted society as a whole, and generated lots of wealth, getting people to pay for them out of pocket is often difficult to impossible. Too often the value is difficult to demonstrate as a personal benefit, and the immediate cost is high.

        Of course governments are often prone to keep supporting or extending networks that have been made obsolete by subsequent technological or social changes. The United States government continued to subsidize the building of canals after they were no longer economically viable, and all the money poured into Amtrak has been a waste. And don’t even get me started on Light Rail and High Speed Rail projects.

        But such projects are engineering problems with clear cut solutions. The Progressive establishment is far too fond of ‘social engineering’ projects that (from the results obtained) apparently HAVE no solutions.

    2. “…depriving governments across the globe of the money they need to address […] jobs…”

      Yep, we certainly need more government employees!

  2. Double taxation is double theft, and Biden wants to rob stockholders of their profits for the same reason Dillinger robbed banks.

    We really shouldn’t play to much into their narrative. The Biden administration wants to be condemned for stealing profits from corporations for the same reason that Trump wanted to be condemned for defending the national anthem–even the condemnation plays well with the groups he’s trying to influence. And he’s desperate for support.

    I used to think Biden would step down after the midterms, but I’m not sure he’ll last that long. God only knows what the fate of Biden’s $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill will be at this point, but either way it goes, it’s likely to make Biden even more unpopular. If it fails, he’s a feckless leader, and if it succeeds, the effects on the economy will be dramatic.

    Biden has a 31% approval rating in Iowa.

    “Thirty-one percent of Iowans approve of how Biden is handling his job, while 62% disapprove and 7% are not sure, according to the latest Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll.”

    https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2021/09/21/president-joe-biden-job-approval-rating-plunges-after-afghanistan-covid-surge/8378224002/

    Biden is presumably doing as well in similar states. Try to imagine the Biden administration recovering from that in any meaningful way and what it would take for that to happen. Now imagine that happening in an inflationary environment, a high interest rate environment, or both. The best argument for Biden improving from here is a statistical trend toward the mean–divorced from context or current events. They’re in deep shit.

    1. The real joke is, adding up ALL after tax profits made in the US comes to less than $1.9 trillion. A 100% tax rate wouldn’t solve our problem.

      1. Just tax profits 1000%.

        1. I heard that rate won’t actually cost business anything. Good idea!

          1. It’s absurd to think they would pass along this cost to the customer.

            1. Correct. The owners of those corporations just dig some gold coins out of the pool in the basement.

    2. “The Biden administration wants to be condemned for stealing profits from corporations”

      This. And what is sad is that I see so many of the big companies playing along with this game. Every time bad news comes out, we see the music start and everyone move on to the next narrative.

      Afghanistan’s bad? Lets scream about vaccine mandates! Budget no longer popular? Scream about the TAXES! Immigration is waiting next!

      More than just shoring up their base, these wedge issues have evolved to keep the two bases neatly divided. As much as I hate to say it, I think the country could find some middle ground (a very, very expensive one) on infrastructure spending. But by throwing these toxic tax increases in there, they ensure the two tribes stay at one another’s throats.

      1. Yeah, their hand-waving is meant to distract us.

        They want to artificially inflate the cost of energy, and put us all on the hook for new entitlements?

        Let’s talk about abortion.

        1. Ken, you challenged me yesterday on some data I posted, and I provided the requested information (and then some). It’s being held up, I assume because of too many links, so breaking it in 2 in hopes that gets it.

          Here you go:

          “Ken, your word is not good with me based on your ramblings about blue collar voters and progressives, so we are on equal footing, by why get personal?

          Here’s the 538 information:
          Scroll down to “How Biden compares to past presidents.
          https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

          Do you really need a link on the last 8 presidential elections? The only popular presidential vote the GOP has won in the last 8 was in 2004, when of course W should not have even been an incumbent. Here are the Democratic popular vote winners:

          B. Clinton
          B. Clinton
          Gore
          Obama
          Obama
          Hillary
          Biden

          That’s 7 out of 8.

          Senate? Enjoy!
          “Republican Senators Haven’t Represented a Majority of Voters Since 1996”

          https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/02/gop-senators-havent-represented-a-majority-since-1996.html

          1. Here’s the other half:

            Now, you tell me how you got that the GOP represents blue collar voters. Whoops. Don’t forget there are blacks and Latinos in that group. I know that’s easy to forget if you hang out with Republicans – looks like the cast from Oklahoma!

            Here’s a little help:
            Look who had a majority of voters making under $30k in 2016 – Hillary.
            Look who had a majority of those making between $30k and $49k – Hillary.

            https://www.statista.com/statistics/631244/voter-turnout-of-the-exit-polls-of-the-2016-elections-by-income/

            Not to get boring, but look who in 2020 won a majority of voters making less than $50k – Biden.

            How about between $50k and $99k – Biden.

            https://www.statista.com/statistics/1184428/presidential-election-exit-polls-share-votes-income-us/

            1. Ken, I also noted the unearned SC majority the GOP enjoys, just more disenfranchising of American voters:

              Ken, you should also note that of the 9 SC justices, 5 were appointed by President’s not elected by the people – in another words, rejected by them – but by the EC through a-constitutional winner take all contests. One SC seat was stolen from a twice popularly elected president, and therefore from the people while another was railroaded through while a presidential election was going on by the GOP Senate majority – majority of Senators representing a minority of Americans – and thus another seat awarded to a president Americans rejected.

              GOP federal level power these days is based on minority rule in all branches and lacks the support of the people.

              1. I have no idea what you’re talking about.

                You said that Kelly was leading his Republican challenger in Arizona by 20 points, and that turned out to be contradicted by the facts–when I linked to polls showing Kelly leading by about 4% as I recall.

                Because I called you full of shit for that, that provoked this weird rant? Other than that, I have no idea what you’re talking about or why. You’re trying to make a point? What’s your point? Because this looks like shitposting to me.

                “Shitposting is posting “aggressively, ironically, and of trollishly poor quality” posts or content to an online forum or social media. Shitposts are intentionally designed to derail discussions or cause the biggest reaction with the least effort. Sometimes they are made as part of a coordinated flame war to make the site unusable by its regular visitors.”

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shitposting

                Make a clear claim, and back it up.

                1. Ken, I accept your surrender but frankly expected more resistance and some intelligent back and forth.

                  1. “…frankly expected more […] intelligent back and forth.”

                    With YOU?!

                2. “I have no idea what you’re talking about.”

                  Neither does Joe; he’s not real smart.

                  1. It looks like classic shitposting.

                    1. He was here yesterday claiming droolin’ Joe’s colossal fuck up was Trump’s fault because Trump wouldn’t turn over his plan to Joe and it seems Joe’s not capable of forming one!
                      Of course, this assumes that Trump is the only one with a copy of the plan and kept it in his back pocket. Or something.
                      Joe’s not real big on that ‘thinking’ stuff.

                3. Well, Joe *is* completely full of shit. So it’s not exceedingly surprising that what emanates forth would match.

                  1. I don’t even understand what he’s trying to say!

                    1. He’s trying to say you should win the World Series if you got the most runs, not if you won more games. Or something.

                    2. Take English lessons Ken.

                      As noted above, in an earlier thread I saw you claimed Democrats were no longer the blue collar party, as if the GOP was, and I yesterday stated that Biden’s numbers were better than Trump’s at this stage in their presidencies and that the GOP has not had a Senate majority which represented a majority of American voters since 1996. You at one point essentially called me a liar and asked for links and above you have them. I had already posted the requested link on the Mark Kelly race and even apologized for confusion if it appeared I claimed I was quoting polling – I hadn’t, but agree my comment was not clear.

                      So Ken, you may find getting data disproving some of your comments and links to requested support “shitposting”. but I’d call it losing an argument (you). All of my posts ate clear to meaning and intent, but hey, if you have any questions, I’ll do my best to help you.

                    3. Fuck off and die, Joe.

                    4. Ken, is this is what you call “shitposting” (see Sevo comment)? If so, this “Reason” site is flooded with it.

                    5. I’ll explain things to you, since you are either too stupid or too dishonest (or both) to figure it out on your own.
                      Hint, pile of lefty shit: Those not insulting my intelligence with lefty bullshit get non-insulting replies.
                      Steaming piles of lefty shit like you get insults and little else, except, for instance that cite yesterday pointing out that your newest “blame Trump for droolin’ Joes colossal fuck up” was debunked about the time droolin’ Joe performed his colossal fuck up.
                      And please fuck off and die.

                    6. “As noted above, in an earlier thread I saw you claimed Democrats were no longer the blue collar party, as if the GOP was, and I yesterday stated that Biden’s numbers were better than Trump’s at this stage in their presidencies”

                      You’re hearing things the way you want to hear them.

                      I think what I probably said is that Trump won the 2016 primaries with the help of registered Democrats in states with open primaries, and that isn’t an opinion. It’s a fact. Right up until it didn’t matter anymore, Trump won every primary that mattered except for Texas and Ohio, which were won by native sons (Cruz in Texas and Kasich in Ohio). (Link Below)

                      You may also be alluding to the fact, I may have mentioned, that the presidential election is decided by swing voters in swing states, and the 2016 election was won by Trump because swing voters from the white, blue collar, middle class in swing states of Michigan, Ohio, western Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin voted for him. You may or may not know that this is what is traditionally called the rust belt, and they were extremely enthusiastic about Trump because of promises to renegotiate NAFTA and to start a trade war with China.

                      This isn’t to say that the blue collar, middle class has turned its back on the Democratic party completely. It just means that a substantial number of them have and did–and when I use the word “substantial”, I mean enough of them became swing voters. They voted for Obama in 2008 and maybe even 2012, but they swung to voting for Trump in 2016–and the turnout for Trump was even bigger in 2020 than it was in 2016.

                      Hope that clears things up. In short, Trump won the Republican primaries in 2016 because Democrats in states with open primaries voted for him, and Trump won the election in 2016 because substantial numbers of Democrats in swing states swung to voting for Trump in the general election.

                      Trump won Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin because of them in 2016, and if you believe otherwise, link to some data to justify it. And try to do a better job of it than that time you said Kelly was leading by 20 points because of a penny gambling site–and in spite of the polls contradicting your claim. That was embarrassing!

                    7. Oh, and incidentally, swing voting Democrats putting Trump in the White House isn’t unusual.

                      Reagan Democrats (from the same rust belt states) did the same thing in 1980 and 1984.

                      “Reagan Democrats no longer saw the Democratic party as champions of their working class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos and other groups.

                      —-Reagan Democrats

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat

                      You could have written the same thing about Trump Democrats in 2016–just add some more groups like environmentalists. This happens to the Democrats periodically. The abandon their bread and butter–the blue collar middle class–and then they lose. In the case of progressives, the social justice warriors spent most of the the eight years of the Obama administration telling the white, blue collar, middle class how much the Democrats hate them for being white (racist), blue collar (stupid), and middle class (selfish).

                      By 2016, a significant number of them started to realize that the Democrats really did hate them, and they piled onto Trump’s bandwagon. The social justice warriors were all about telling the white, blue collar workers in swing states that they were racist for being white, misogynist for being heterosexual, xenophobic for wanting something done about immigration, and homophobic for being Christian.

                      Hell, by 2016, they were even telling football fans they were racist for being patriotic. When Trump was denounced in similar terms by the progressives in the press (as racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, etc.), he became the champion of middle America just for being denounced in the same terms they had been for the previous eight years.

                      This happened in 1980 and 1984, more or less, the same way. This happened in 2016. It’ll happen again in 2024 if things keep going the way they are. Did you notice that Joe Biden’s numbers are lower in Iowa now than there were at any point during Trump’s presidency? Why do you think that is? Do you think it’s isolated to Iowa? What makes them so different from the rest of middle America–where the swing states are?

                      It doesn’t matter if Biden is popular in California and New York. Elections are decided by swing voters in swing states, and if you believe otherwise, you’re simply wrong.

                    8. Ken, I’m glad that we agree that “blue collar” voters continue to vote for Democratic presidential candidates – as do most Americans. The reasons for this are clear and historic – the GOP focuses on tax cuts for the well off and Democrats focus on programs aiding those less well off. As you could see from my earlier link, to confirm this, the only economic group won by Trump was those making over $100k while Biden won those making under that amount.

                      Perhaps you’d be interested to know – and may know already – that Biden won those rust belt states and Georgia that Hillary lost not because of vote totals in the big cities of Philly, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Atlanta, but because of vote totals in smaller cities and bedroom communities throughout those states. In fact, Biden underperformed Hillary in all 4 of those cities and out performed her statewide. So, the GOP may be trading suburban voters for rural whites, the latter group a shrinking demographic, like much of the GOP.

                    9. “…The reasons for this are clear and historic – the GOP focuses on tax cuts for the well off and Democrats focus on programs aiding those less well off…”

                      New lefty shits show up with the same old lies.
                      Fuck off and die, asshole.

                    10. “Ken, I’m glad that we agree that “blue collar” voters continue to vote for Democratic presidential candidates – as do most Americans. The reasons for this are clear and historic – the GOP focuses on tax cuts for the well off and Democrats focus on programs aiding those less well off.”

                      1) I think you’re just making shit up about why “most Americans” do what they do, and I don’t see a link for that assertion anywhere. Are you psychic?

                      2) The Democrats are fighting to protect carried interest, which only benefits a small number of extremely wealthy individuals on Wall Street.

                      https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/30/lobbying-kept-carried-interest-out-of-bidens-tax-plan-bernstein-says.html

                      3) It seems to me that the Republicans are trying to keep everyone’s taxes low, and the Democrats are trying to force the middle class to pay through the nose for overpaid government employees, the unemployed, and the poor on socialist programs.

                      Every American who cares more about their own standard of living (and that of their family) than they do about other people is . . . um . . . perfectly sane. Do you find it personally offensive to hear that other people care more about themselves than they do about you? Why should they sacrifice their hard earned money for you? What’s so special about you that you should be free to enjoy the fruit of other people’s labor?

                      You seem to be thinking like a parasite. On the one hand, you seem to think sucking blood out of other people’s backs is perfectly appropriate–to the point that everyone does it and it’s popular! Do you think that people who don’t want you sucking blood out of their backs are being selfish? Because that’s definitely parasite like thinking.

                      Do you not have a job? Do you work for the government? Are you in a union, where they pay you based on your seniority? All those things can contribute to parasite like thinking. It’s like a complete moral breakdown. Why, over times, some people start thinking that other people’s property rights are a popularity contest! You’re not one of those people, are you? Is your model of democracy two blood sucking ticks vs. one lone hiker arguing about what’s for dinner?

                    11. Ken, I am a builder who has made payroll every week for over 40 years, and the last time I received a pay check from somebody else was 1973.

                      The built in insults in your response belies the weakness of your arguments and your loaded definitions of legitimate government functions – bloodsucking, etc – belies the religious/cult like beliefs you operate on, and which are emotional, not rational. If you want to discuss facts, lets do it, but I’m not wasting my time trying to convert true believers.

                    12. Ken, since we have been discussing elections and trends, you should also know that counties that voted for Biden represented of 70% of GDP, while those that voted for Trump represented only 30% of GDP.

                      Increasingly, the GOP is the party of low productivity and declining demographics which by luck and corruption has managed to hold more power than it deserves or likely can maintain.

          2. So, are you a fan of tyranny of the majority? (And before you tell me it is more justified than tyranny of the minority, how about no tyranny at all?)

            1. Earth, it’s called Democracy, We have constitutional protections for minorities, but rule by the minority was not the founders plan. Yes, the EC decides our president, but by winner take all contests – which maximize each states impact while giving us screwy random results and are not specified in the Constitution – has until recently agreed with majority of national voters (until 2000, only 2 presidents across our 200 plus year history were so decided (and called in their time “unelected frauds”).

              Yes, the Senate represents states, not voters, but we are now ruled at least 1/2 the time by a senate representing less than a majority of Americans and when in the minority aggressively uses the non-constitutional “filibuster” to stifle most legislation (beginning in 2006, when the GOP lost the majority, they began using it at records exponentially higher than throughout our history).

              The SC is supposed to be appointed by the President, an elected leader who therefore is assumed to represent popular will, but no more. Th theft of the Obama/Garland seat took away what should have been a liberal court for 4 years.

              A government not representative of the people was not the founders idea and it will soon lead to trouble.

              1. Yes, tyranny of the majority is also called Democracy. Which is why pure democracy is a bad thing. And why a constitutional republic with some, but not absolute, democracy was a good idea. The system was designed to work the way it does for some carefully considered reasons. You may not like it, but it’s not random and it’s not a perversion of what the process is supposed to be. States are the entities that make up the United States so the system was set up so that each state has a meaningful voice.

                1. Zeb, “tyranny of majority” is not fixed by tyranny of the minority but by constitutional protections for all citizens, including minorities. You are confusing concepts. There is nothing beneficial about having a minority of voters select our president under random procedural events. Consider Kerry would have been president in 2005 if he had won 60k more votes in Ohio in 2004, even though he still would have lost the national vote. Tell me what principle that would have upheld? These flukey results are primarily due to winner take all contests in all states but Maine and Nebraska, which are by congressional district I believe.

                  1. Maine is by congressional district. Then the candidate with the most total votes gets the two senatorial electoral college votes.

                    1. Thanks for the info Chumby.

                  2. “Zeb, “tyranny of majority” is not fixed by tyranny of the minority but by constitutional protections for all citizens, including minorities…”

                    If you need a hand with that strawman, there are other lefty shits here who are more than willing to pitch in.

                  3. It’s not random, it is not flukey, it is that way by design. If the authors of the constitution thought the president was supposed to be whoever a majority of voters voted for, that is how it would work. But that’s not how it works. You may disagree that that is the best way to do it, but acting like it is some kind of mistake or flaw in the system that allows presidents to be elected with a minority of “popular vote” is just ignorant. The system is what it is. The president is not elected by popular vote and never has been. The popular vote is not a real thing. The president is elected by electors. The electors are the ones elected by the people, in 50 separate state elections. And there majority does rule.

                    1. “…but acting like it is some kind of mistake or flaw in the system that allows presidents to be elected with a minority of “popular vote” is just ignorant…”

                      Or dishonest and in Joe’s case, probably both.

          3. Barbie, it’s kinda creepy to see you chasing after Ken so hard. Let it go, girl.

            Also, maybe keep your deranged rambling on topic and reply on the thread it’s relevant to…?

            Less creepy stalker stuff.

      2. The country already spends billions on infrastructure. Can’t speak for other places but in my neck of the woods contractors are flat out booked. Folks that bid everything have to be begged to even take out a set of plans much less put a number to them.

        1. On the smaller scale that is also true. We are doing some home improvements and it takes months to get someone out. Not only that but the supply chain problems are horrible. We have been waiting months for the new door we ordered.

          1. Might have to do with the government using your money to pay people not to work.

    3. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska and both Dakotas, saw a 96 percent increase in bankruptcy filings caused by Trump tariffs.

      1. I’m not sure why that’s pertinent to this discussion.

        “Biden’s job approval rating is lower than former President Donald Trump’s worst showing in the Iowa Poll. The former Republican president’s worst job approval was 35% in December 2017. Other recent presidents’ worst Iowa Poll results: Barack Obama, 36%, in February 2014, and George W. Bush, 25%, in September 2008.

        https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2021/09/21/president-joe-biden-job-approval-rating-plunges-after-afghanistan-covid-surge/8378224002/

        Trump didn’t do so well in the Iowa midterms measuring by how the Republicans did in Iowa House races in 2018. The Republicans lost two of Iowa’s four House seats in 2018, and that gave the Democrats three out of the four.

        Do you imagine Biden will do better if he’s polling worse than Trump did for some reason?

          1. My point was that one of the reasons Biden can’t get his agenda through Congress is because his popularity is dropping swing districts and swing states–with his popularity dropping like a rock in Iowa being one example.

            Can you explain the relevance–in this context–of a poll showing that De Santis is increasing in popularity among Republican voters?

            1. Ken, House Democrats will pass the reconciliation and infrastructure bills if they know the Senate will. The “swing districts” you are talking about are the “swing states” of WVa and Arizona.

              But hey, tell us about Iowa again.

          2. Am I supposed to think that because DeSantis is increasingly popular with Republican voters, Biden isn’t having trouble in Congress because his approval rating has fallen to 31% in middle America states like Iowa?

            Help me understand your logic.

            1. Bidens numbers will soar when the bills pass, which is why republicans are fighting it. Biden reaches milestone of 100 million shots within his first 100 days, republicans said it couldn’t be done. He then got 200 million in 100 days, they said it couldn’t be done. Then he found out Republicans would rather die than let Biden succeed and they started taking insane witch doctor cures. I hate giving good advice for Republicans but Trumps dementia is getting worse everyday and the news of DeSantis is likely to put him over the ledge.

              1. “Bidens numbers will soar when the bills pass, which is why republicans are fighting it.”

                This is incredibly obtuse.

                The reason the moderate Democrats are refusing to vote for it (and want to vote on the infrastructure bill first) is because they think voting for it is political suicide. They’re Democrats in vulnerable districts both red and purple. What do you know that they don’t know?

                Again, it doesn’t matter if the bill is popular in New York and California. The districts and states that swing back and forth between the parties are in the middle of the country, and the Democrat who represent those districts think that voting for Biden’s $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill is political suicide.

                Start thinking for yourself.

                1. I meant that if its good for Biden they are against it but even if its bad for Biden they are against it. They haven’t changed a bit since Obama were they were against everything he did. Obama saved the car industry and millions of jobs and yet the Republicans were against it. They said the same thing to Obama about his ObamaCare and they tried everything they could to stop it yet they never had anything better and were willing to try to stop him even if millions had no care for years and possibly die. I know the budget is not political suicide because THEN they would be for it.

                2. Political suicide is taking advice from a party or you that has only won the popular vote only ONCE in 32 years, and that was because Bush made up a fake terror warning alert which was worthless other than scaring the American people. The plan then-Pres. George W. Bush had was twofold: Argue that the govt of dictator Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaeda terrorists, and that Saddam had chemical and possibly biological weapons, and the potential for developing a nuclear bomb. Neither one could be farther from the truth. Biden’s numbers will soar when the Merck COVID pill comes out, Trump will claim he invented it but hardly anyone but nutcases with him in the Dementia ward will believe him. Trump will attack any R who looks like they might overtake him even if he goes to jail, which literally describes political suicide. As early as May 2015, one month before launching his pres. campaign, Trump expressed his desire to fix America’s aging infrastructure, making it “second to none”. Pure Dementia….see a few examples below.

              2. “I hate giving good advice for Republicans but Trumps dementia is getting worse everyday and the news of DeSantis is likely to put him over the ledge.”

                How is any of this related to my observation about how Biden’s plunging popularity in swing districts and swing states is hampering his ability to get his legislation through Congress?

                Are you just emoting or something?

                Get a dog.

              3. “Bidens numbers will soar when the bills pass, which is why republicans are fighting it…”

                If that were true, the R’s would be voting FOR it to capture some of the ‘free shit’ votes.
                ——————————————-
                “…I hate giving good advice for Republicans but Trumps dementia is getting worse everyday and the news of DeSantis is likely to put him over the ledge…”

                Not to worry; you don’t have any.
                Are ‘the walls closing in’, is it ‘the tipping point’, or perhaps ‘the beginning of the end’, TDS-addled piece of lefty shit?

                1. As soon as the D’s reach a majority win, the R’s will jump in to get the stuff for their people. Not admitting that you lost by the largest vote in history and STILL not admitting defeat is Pure Dementia (PD). Getting results from latest Ninja audit showing Biden won by more additional votes is PD. Calling up one of your employees to tell them your penis is not like a small mushroom as Stormy said is PD. He craps on our troops again that they surrendered to the knife wielding Taliban is PD. Said dozens of times 1917 Spanish Flu (actually 1918) is PD. Advising Clorox is PD. Rant about Chrismas is PD. Narcissists cannot handle losses of any kind (See Obama birth) is PD. Cheating on all 3 wives while calling rags to put him and his latest slut on their front page is PD. I could go on for hours but that would be PD.

            2. DeSantis’s popularity has dropped in Florida over his Covid responses.

      2. “…saw a 96 percent increase in bankruptcy filings caused by Trump tariffs.”

        No fan of tariffs, but making up shit doesn’t help your case.

    4. As I kept saying, the problem with Biden & Co is that all their ideas are terrible, and reality has a nasty way of inserting itself into the conversation.

    5. They’re in deep shit.

      We. We are in deep shit.

  3. tax haven
    tăks hā′vən
    noun

    1. Any jurisdiction where the tax rate is lower than here.

    1. 2. Popular rich Prog vacation site.

  4. Watch out, rich people and large corporations! Joe Biden’s coming after your money!

    Of course he’s aware the mega-rich helped put him in office, but that’s irrelevant — his commitment to leftist redistributive economics is so sincere that he can’t wait to financially punish his own base. 😉

    #OBLsFirstLaw

    1. Larry Page and Sergey Brin have made over $40 billion each in just 8 or 9 months of the Biden economy. But trust me, that won’t last. Once Biden and the Democratic Congressional majority work their magic, it’ll definitely be poor people making the most financial gains.

  5. It’s always seemed surreal to me to see a trillionaire government accusing mere millionaires of being greedy for wanting to keep more of their own money rather than turning it over to the spendthrift government – and how many people agree with that assessment.

    Of course we all know the reason the government is so profligate, it’s not their money they’re slinging around so casually, it doesn’t cost them a thing to be so generous with other people’s money. And this is why we need to give these people some incentive to be more fiscally responsible.

    My proposal is to give them each some sum of money, let’s say $5 billion for each member of the House and $10 billion for each Senator, and allow them to allocate that money however they want within the budget. Since no member of Congress is going to sit there and go through the entire 2000+ page budget, most of the money is going to go to the big-ticket items and several thousand small-time bullshit agencies and programs involved in shit the government has no business meddling in anyway are going to be zeroed out of the budget. Government is going to get a lot smaller and a lot less intrusive if it stops doing about 90% of the stuff it currently does and just sticks to doing a few things.

    Now, the trick to getting the politicians to go along with this is to tell them they have a spending limit but that any funds they don’t allocate, half of it goes back to the Treasury, the other half they can stick in their pocket. How fast do you suppose the budget is going to show a surplus?

    But the real beauty of this is that how many candidates do you expect to see next election? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? And every single one of them is going to be running on the same exact campaign – “I promise you I can spend less money than my opponents.”

    Now it may seem galling to have to essentially bribe congresscritters to stop spending so goddamn much money we don’t have on bullshit we don’t need to be doing, but until we can devise a way to make sure we only elect angels to high office you’re just going to have to accept that they’re all liars and crooks and truly horrible people and if paying them to go away is the only way to get them to go away, you do what you gotta do.

    1. I am not so sure Jerry. One thing I have seen a lot in government is that it loves to spend a few hundred million here or there to fund some closet, wonk industry. For example sending aid to Ukraine, to fund billionaire oligarchs who then pay money to think tanks and lobbyists which setup cushy jobs for Senator’s sons. This all works because 5 or 10 billion dollars isn’t a lot of money in the trillion dollar government budget- but it is enough to keep billionaire oligarchs and senators’ sons swimming in bacon fat.

    2. I could see some zaney house members spending a lot of money on some reeeealy stupid shit. But I suppose the real question is, would it be worse than it already is?

  6. There is no “Joe Biden.” He is a very feeble suit for powerful collective of communists that are swiftly overtaking the Democrat party.

    Within the next 10 years, the Democrats will be openly and proudly calling themselves communists.

    1. Jacobin and BLM are mouthpieces for the Democratic Socialists of America. They support the Cuban revolution, not the protesters. I notice a recurring thread, lack of access to free market goods is the reason socialist nations suffer. In other words: free markets are evil and greedy…lack of access to free markets is evil and greedy. Holding two conflicting narratives at the same time is urban hipster happy hour fun talk.

      1. Wish I could find the proper credit (not me):
        ‘Capitalist economies function just fine without communist economies; no communist economy functions without capitalist economies.’

        1. “No Communist economy functions.”

          Brevity.

          1. True enough, but it seems the comparison helps.

  7. My proposal is to give them each some sum of money, let’s say $5 billion for each member of the House and $10 billion for each Senator, and allow them to allocate that money however they want within the budget.

    What is this “budget” of which you speak? Just let them spend it directly on *anything*.

    Intriguing proposal, though.

    1. Supposed to be reply to Jerryskids.

      *** gets coffee ***

  8. “President Joe Biden apparently thinks it’s wrong for corporations to locate their headquarters in low-tax places like Bermuda, Ireland, and Switzerland. Did he learn nothing from living in Delaware?”

    Joe has enough trouble remembering which of these are US states. But he does remember when Delaware was a colony.

    1. Nice catch of a weasel word.

  9. Democrats are resentful, wealth-jealous people.

  10. The attack is hardly misguided. It is deliberate and laser focused.
    You just to refuse to accept the target of the democrat party as the USA’s system of government.

  11. As usual fuck all democrats, fuck the far left, fuck Joe Biden, and especially fuck the faux libertarians here like jeffsarcmikeredneck who are far leftie shits.

  12. The administration’s strategy involves convincing other developed countries to adopt a global minimum tax for corporations

    Sooner or later, GM will move their corporate headquarters to Somalia, realizing it’s cheaper to bribe a warlord for protection than to pay corporate taxes in a developed country.

    1. Or GM will buy their own country and army.

  13. “…Did he learn nothing from living in Delaware?…”

    Why limit this to tax law?

  14. “After all, corporations don’t really pay taxes—only consumers and workers do.”

    I’ve heard that this is both absurd and unfair.

    1. It’s like having to go to school when you KNOW your parents COULD take you to Disneyland instead.

  15. I thought another big reason for so-called tax havens was cost saving due to more simple laws/taxes/regulations. Legal counsel is expensive.

    1. “Legal counsel is expensive.”

      Lawyers and accountants are employees of those who utilize tax havens.

      1. Hey, look! trueman’s here to prove what a bullshitter he is!
        Hint, bullshitter; you can hire fewer of them when the regulations are simpler!
        I’ll bet that comes as a complete surprise to you…

  16. The administration’s strategy involves convincing other developed countries to adopt a GLOBAL MINIMUM TAX for corporations, while RESHAPING the United States…

    Nothing speaks treason better than that. The Nazi-Regime wants to TAKE-OVER the USA “Reshape” and join a GLOBAL Nazi-Government Style….

    Conquer and Consume — because that’s what Nazi’s do; until someone stands up to them.

    1. Taxes were reduced by the Nazi regime when they came to power. They also privatized many public concerns, like banking, transport, heavy industries etc. Placating Germany’s right is how they gained power.

      Jews were the exception to these policies. They were robbed and stripped of their assets in every conceivable fashion.

      1. “Taxes were reduced by the Nazi regime when they came to power. They also privatized many public concerns, like banking, transport, heavy industries etc. Placating Germany’s right is how they gained power…”

        Hey, look! trueman’s here to spout the nonsense regarding the National Socialists as taught in high-school!

  17. There is nothing wrong with companies and individuals that shelter their earnings from governments, which are like organized mobs that can never seize enough revenue.

    Really? How do regular Americans “shelter their earnings from government”? Answer: we can’t.

    Tax havens are a vehicle for the ultra-wealthy in the US to shield their earnings; they can put their wealth into foreign corporations that they fully control and accumulate more wealth effectively tax free.

    Democrats are making absolutely sure that regular wage earners don’t have that option.

    1. “…How do regular Americans “shelter their earnings from government”? Answer: we can’t…”

      Ignoring the fact that corporate tax avoidance saves you money, you need some tax advice.

      1. How do regular Americans “shelter their earnings from government”?

        Ignoring the fact that corporate tax avoidance saves you money, you need some tax advice.

        Please explain: how do foreign tax shelters help reduce people’s income taxes?

        The fact is that foreign tax shelters overwhelmingly help the super rich, but they do little for average Americans, for whom investment income is a small portion of their overall earnings.

        Now, the libertarian solution to this is, of course, not to abolish foreign tax shelters, it is to lower US taxes and stop extraterritorial taxation for all Americans.

        But please stop peddling the nonsense that foreign tax shelters are somehow a good thing no matter what. In the context of our current tax system, foreign tax shelters are preferential treatment for the super-wealthy, while regular wage earners are SOL.

        1. My apologies; did not realize what an idiot you are:
          “Please explain: how do foreign tax shelters help reduce people’s income taxes?”
          I did not say that; re-read the post, I’m tired of correcting idiots who cannot read.

          “The fact is that foreign tax shelters overwhelmingly help the super rich, but they do little for average Americans, for whom investment income is a small portion of their overall earnings.”
          You’re full of shit; they lower the costs of goods for any consumer.

          “Now, the libertarian solution to this is, of course, not to abolish foreign tax shelters, it is to lower US taxes and stop extraterritorial taxation for all Americans.”
          Yes, because (just above), that would lower the cost of goods.

          “But please stop peddling the nonsense that foreign tax shelters are somehow a good thing no matter what. In the context of our current tax system, foreign tax shelters are preferential treatment for the super-wealthy, while regular wage earners are SOL.”
          You.
          Are.
          Full.
          Of.
          Shit.
          Also, please fuck off and die; make the world a more intelligent place.

          1. I did not say that; re-read the post, I’m tired of correcting idiots who cannot read.

            I am tired of that too. We were talking about earnings. It was you who changed the subject from earnings to “saving money”.

            You’re full of shit; they lower the costs of goods for any consumer.

            Indeed, they simultaneously “lower the costs of goods for any consumer” and “overwhelmingly help the super rich”. There is no contradiction.

            Also, please fuck off and die; make the world a more intelligent place.

            You’re pretty typical of the modern “libertarian”: illiterate, ignorant, and rude. Thanks for providing an object lesson.

            1. Glad you agree with the voices in your head.
              If you ever learn to read, you might be worth more than a:
              Fuck off and die.

              1. More straw men and vitriol. Typical.

                When you’re able to respond to something I actually said, please feel free to chime in!

                1. What “strawman”, asshole? I’m more than willing to match wits with an ignoramus, ignoramus.
                  And the vitriol is only what you’ve earned, asshole.

                  1. I said:

                    Really? How do regular Americans “shelter their earnings from government”? Answer: we can’t.

                    If you do have information about legal [foreign] tax shelters for the earnings of regular Americans, please feel free to describe them. Lots of people would be interested.

                    Your turn.

                    1. “My turn” was answered above:
                      Yes, those other than econ-ignoramus, victim-whining assholes (that would be you) have to pay for tax advice.
                      Fuck off and die, asshole.

                    2. Thanks, Sevo, for admitting that you were wrong.

            2. Maybe, Just Maybe; This exact scenario is WHY the U.S. Constitution gave the feds the ability to charge TARIFF’S? Which is in-fact a way to regulate (prosecute the tax-haven) commerce within foreign Nations since the USA cannot and should-not turn into a GLOBAL Government. Which is exactly the intent of everyone of the worst governments ever existing; to take over the world – conquer and consume.

              1. Boy, that pile of bullshit must have taken some real effort to pull out of your ass.

    2. “After all, corporations don’t really pay taxes—only consumers and workers do.”

      How many of our hard pressed consumers and workers have tax haven arrangements in Bermuda?

      1. Oh, goody! trueman here to spout bullshit, contradicting himself in two sentences!

  18. I guess Biden’s first state of the union will copy and paste Bernie Sanders shit post tweets, and pivot to Trump and systemic racism. It’s not like he can drool his way through the reality of the SOTU, no matter how much they meth pump him.

    1. And then he’ll mention his son died of cancer!

  19. Franchise Direct’s goal is to provide a reliable, authoritative platform where entrepreneurs can connect with franchisors seeking investors. In support of this objective, our mission is to be the leading online resource for franchise opportunities and the knowledge center of choice for anyone seeking information on the franchise industry.
    haldiram franchise

  20. Reason would have you believe you never need taxes apparently. Heaven forbid the government want a stable source of funding. And if it’s unpopular then wouldn’t the populace vote them out?

    Slobbing on the Koch knob, all day, everyday for Reason writers.

    1. Sales taxes. This is the libertarian answer. Although it’s not clear to me why taxing sales is any more morally justified than taxing any other economic activity.

      1. “Sales taxes. This is the libertarian answer…”

        Pulled that out of your ass, didn’t you?

      2. I don’t know why sales taxes would be any more “morally” justified.

        But economically, sales taxes (and tariffs) discourage consumption and encourage productivity and capital investments, which is a good thing, while income taxes, property taxes, and capital gains taxes discourage productivity and capital investments.

        So, if you are going to raise taxes, taxes on consumption are preferrable to taxes on productive activities.

        1. “…But economically, sales taxes (and tariffs) discourage consumption and encourage productivity and capital investments, which is a good thing,…”

          Discoraging consumption is no way to encourage productivity; it’s a good way to get people laid off or fired.
          You really are an ignoramus, aren’t you?

          1. Discoraging consumption is no way to encourage productivity

            I agree. In fact, I didn’t say that “discouraging consumption encourages productivity”! Try responding to what I actually said.

            it’s a good way to get people laid off or fired.

            Indeed: a shift of the economy from consumer goods to capital goods results in layoffs in industries that make consumer goods (and hiring in industries that make capital goods).

            You really are an ignoramus, aren’t you?

            You are projecting.

            1. Yes, you are an ignoramus:
              Sales taxes reduce consumption.
              Take as long as you need to consider that; you seem too stupid to understand a lot.

              1. Sales taxes reduce consumption.

                I agree: sales taxes reduce consumption.

                That means that labor and raw materials previously used for producing consumer goods are freed up for producing capital goods.

                Capital goods produce wealth; consumer goods reduce wealth.

                That’s elementary, mainstream economics.

                Take as long as you need to consider that; you seem too stupid to understand a lot.

                Take your own advice. Better yet, try reading some basic economics for a change, rather than Krugman’s bizarre Keynesians rants.

                1. “Capital goods produce wealth; consumer goods reduce wealth.”

                  You.
                  Are.
                  Full.
                  Of.
                  Shit.
                  It is axiomatic that every individual trade between free agents increases the wealth of mankind. Each one not by much, but make millions of them every day, and we get very prosperous.
                  Stalin, Hitler and Mao proved you can spend yourself into bankruptcy financing huge capital projects and get nothing; until the capital projects provide the goods that Hans, Uri and Nah want to buy, they are worthless.
                  And you have proven yourself so fucking stupid that this seems a mystery to you. What sort of lack of education do you have?

                  1. BTW, just a hint: Krugman agrees with you.

                  2. One more hint: Marx claimed the capitalists (your “capital”), controlled the economy and proposed to change the control to labor.
                    Well, turns out he was wrong twice and so are econ-ignoramuses like you.
                    The consumer controls the economy. If a company does not bow to the consumer, or (like Apple) convince the consumer to pay a bit more for style, they will go out of business.
                    No amount of capital spending will compensate for the stupidity which ignores the consumer owns the economy.
                    You’re welcome, and you should have been charged for such a basic instruction, asshole.

                  3. Stalin, Hitler and Mao proved you can spend yourself into bankruptcy financing huge capital projects

                    Are you on drugs or something? Where did I advocate government spending on “huge capital projects”?

                    What I said is that given the choice between taxing consumption and taxing income/capital gains, taxing consumption is preferable.

                    until the capital projects provide the goods that Hans, Uri and Nah want to buy, they are worthless

                    Lucky then that eliminating taxes on income and capital gains will cause just that kind of production to happen!

                2. And, yes to add to the piling on, since, as an econ-ignoramus, you deserve it.
                  Please explain how Hong Kong, with nearly zero capital investment in manufacturing or recoverable resources, and a population of, what, 1/100,000th of mainland China, managed to out-perform the CCCP with huge resources and huge capital investments.
                  It’s really fun to prove econ-ignoramus are full of shit!
                  So, asshole, let’s see some cites which might suggest you are not
                  Full.
                  Of.
                  Shit.

                  1. Please explain how Hong Kong, with nearly zero capital investment in manufacturing or recoverable resources,

                    Hong Kong does exactly what I’m saying is a good thing: they have no capital gains tax rate and a low income tax rate (17% top marginal). In addition, the Hong Kong government spends very little on “capital projects” or anything else.

                    That is precisely why people in Hong Kong invest massively in capital goods and why Hong Kong has been doing well.

                    It’s really fun to prove econ-ignoramus are full of shit!

                    Honeybuns, you are confusing my advocacy of low capital gains tax rates (which produce private investment in capital goods) with Krugman’s advocacy of high government spending on what you call “capital projects”.

                    The problem here is that you are evidently functionally illiterate.

        2. “But economically, sales taxes (and tariffs) discourage consumption and encourage productivity and capital investments, which is a good thing, ”

          How is a tax that disincentivizes the customers of widget makers, nail salon owners, hair stylists, and anyone else who tries to make a living selling a good or service a good thing?

          1. How is a tax that disincentivizes the customers of widget makers, nail salon owners, hair stylists, and anyone else who tries to make a living selling a good or service a good thing?

            We live in a world of economic scarcity and limited resources, so the question is not whether these people work but what they are doing and what they are producing. If you direct resources towards making 8K TVs (consumer goods), you are going to produce less wealth in the future than when those resources go into making CNC machines (capital goods). And if you tax income at 50%, people are going to choose to work/produce less and have more leisure time.

            In a free market, people will find some natural balance between production and consumption. The problem is that our current tax system and entitlement system distorts this and biases the country heavily towards consumption. That’s because we tax labor and capital gains heavily, while at the same time subsidizing consumer spending massively and discouraging savings.

            The US has massively distorted incentives in the direction of consumption, and that is the fundamental reason for slow growth and economic problems. To justify this, progressives have indoctrinated Americans into believing that abnormally high levels of consumer spending are necessary “for the economy”.

            1. “We live in a world of economic scarcity and limited resources,”

              We live in a world of unlimited credit and economic goods can be replicated and distributed around the world instantly at almost no cost. The scarcity and limitations you refer to are self imposed and artificial.

              “If you direct resources towards making 8K TVs (consumer goods)”

              Americans haven’t made TVs for decades. They are made in China by South Korean and Japanese corps. America’s most successful industries from a global standpoint is Hollywood, Silicon Valley and the music biz. They all rely on consumers laying out money. The days when manufacturing behemoths of the Detroit big 3 and Boeing etc dominating the American economic are long gone.

              “And if you tax income at 50%, people are going to choose to work/produce less and have more leisure time.”

              My god, they might even live longer, healthier lives.

              “The problem is that our current tax system and entitlement system distorts this and biases the country heavily towards consumption. ”

              Isn’t that more to do with the aforementioned unlimited credit? Isn’t the fact that public and private debt is at unprecedented levels?

              1. Americans haven’t made TVs for decades. They are made in China by South Korean and Japanese corps. America’s most successful industries from a global standpoint is Hollywood, Silicon Valley and the music biz.

                Correct: the Chinese produce TVs and we produce movies, and we exchange one for the other. So what? I wasn’t suggesting that the US should return to manufacturing, I was simply illustrating the difference between consumer goods and capital goods. An analogous distinction exists for services: movies are consumptive, software development is productive.

                The fundamental problem is that Americans are consuming more value (in goods, services, movies, etc.) than they are producing in value; that’s why the debt keeps increasing and why the dollar keeps inflating. The fact that part of those differences shows up in services and foreign trade doesn’t change the fundamental problem.

                You cannot fix this problem by consuming more; you can only fix it by consuming less and producing more. But for political reason, the US has a tax, fiscal, and regulatory policy that encourages the exact opposite, and that simply isn’t going to work long term.

                1. “You cannot fix this problem by consuming more; ”

                  I don’t see the problem you are referring to. American productivity is still climbing and has been for a long time. I still don’t see how there’s anything to be solved by disincentivizing Americans from going to the theater or nail salon.

                  I’ve heard that productivity and pay used to rise hand in hand, but that relationship has been broken for the past few decades. Easy credit has picked up the slack. Is this the problem you refer to?

                  1. American productivity is still climbing and has been for a long time.

                    You are referring to “labor productivity”, i.e., “GDP per hour worked”; that’s not what we are talking about here. Biden’s $10 trillion blowout will increase “labor productivity”, but it will also make Americans poorer.

                    Is this the problem you refer to?

                    I’m pointing out a simple economic fact: there are goods that are purely consumptive and there are goods that are used to produce other goods (and hence yield a future return). If you want a society to become actually more wealthy, you should not adopt tax policies that encourage consumption.

                    I don’t see the problem you are referring to.

                    You don’t see the $28 trillion in debt the US has incurred? The $70 billion trade deficit? The $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities?

                    The problem is that the US has been on a spending spree for decades. If all that money had gone to building factories, asteroid mines, etc. it would be an investment with a future return that could pay for the debt. But instead, the money has gone to buying consumer goods from China, bombing various countries into the stone age, and elaborate coiffures from Americans, all activities with no future return on the spending.

                    1. I’m still not sure how sales taxes will solve the problem of all that debt. I understand that you denigrate such enterprises as Hollywood or nail salons in favor of capital goods. Let’s take a robot manufacturer. Charging a sales tax every time a customer wants to buy a robot will naturally disincentive sales.

                      “all activities with no future return on the spending.”

                      One word, ‘sequels.’ A single film, Star Wars spawned at least 6 or 7 sequels, with more to come. The marvel superhero films are no doubt made with sequels already in mind before the original is finished shooting. Nails grow, even after death. A satisfied customer is likely to (the horror) return and spend more.

    2. “Reason would have you believe you never need taxes apparently….”

      Shitfordinner would have you believe his strawman had some connection to reality.
      Hint, shit-for-brains: It doesn’t.

    3. Apparently; Taxing is a necessary evil of government that should be ensuring Individual Liberty and Justice for all. Taxing so this [WE] mob can make a fraudulent living off of that [WE] mob by armed theft are never needed nor ethically sound. Instead of taxing to ensure Liberty and Justice; it’s taxing as an armed criminal.

      What to do when government starts working for the criminals?

      1. A LOT of stupidity here this evening:

        “Apparently; Taxing is a necessary evil of government that should be ensuring Individual Liberty and Justice for all…”

        No, taxes are the fee we pay to have those services which would not be funded by individuals; national defense, roads, and such like.
        It is assumed that the government will do these things badly, as the government does all things, but it is better to have such (few) things done badly as opposed to not at all.

        1. It is assumed that the government will do these things badly, as the government does all things, but it is better to have such (few) things done badly as opposed to not at all.

          True. Sadly, many idiots seem to think that the best way of financing these things is via income taxes and capital gains taxes, instead of tariffs and sales taxes.

          That’s because many so-called “libertarians” have drunk the leftist, Keynesian Cool Aid.

        2. And what is the point of funding a National Defense? So it can arm off all those patriots fighting for Liberty and Justice? No; It’s to ensure the USA doesn’t get invaded / taken-over by those who are against that principle.

          1. “And what is the point of funding a National Defense?”

            Perhaps so fucking ignoramuses like you don’t have to pay for armies from your wallet?
            Are you trying to prove how stupid righty-shits can be?

            1. I think you’re skip-reading comments today and missing a lot of points.

              While you’re right, “better to have such (few) things done badly as opposed to not at all” that would also depend on if those (few) things are ensuring Individual Liberty and Justice or pushing National Socialism. We don’t need a Nazi-Army..

              1. We need a USA army.

        3. In 2012 Ted Cruz wanted to get rid of the IRS. He figured everyone would voluntarily pay their taxes…he said laughingly.

          1. There’s still the U.S. Marshall.

            Not as if the USA needed literally countless ABC.. law enforcement agencies when more than half of them are rogue agencies of the Nazi-Regime and illegal to the USA (def; U.S. Constitution).

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_the_United_States

    4. “ And if it’s unpopular then wouldn’t the populace vote them out?”

      Why, yes they would, according to the social studies we teach middle schoolers.

  21. comments are scary 😀

  22. Especially hilarious considering he always brags about how Delaware has so many corporate HQs…….

  23. “Did he learn nothing from living in Delaware?”

    Can he remember living in Delaware?

  24. I have no appetite to get out of my way to save money for soulless corporations that would fire unvaxxed workers who gave them a lifetime of service and drag mothers out of airplane because their crying babies can’t handle 5 hours of wearing masks. They threw money at raving lunatics who burned down small businesses while recording record profits in the pandemic economy, so they have money to spend somewhere.

    These people also support an utopian society where healthcare, college, and housing are all free and 40,000 thousand migrants can ram through the border annually, but they’ll say “Oh no, you can’t tax US to fund these things, they’re bad for the economy”.

    You want to move your money around outside the country. That’s fine. Do you have a constitutional right not to be taxed on those things? Dunno. If Joe Biden passes an EO saying all tax havens are now kaput, I mean……elections have consequences. You’re gonna stand by while the media calls names on people who are against taxes? You wanna keep sending money to people who want to bite your hand?

    1. Fuck off and die, slaver.

      1. Take your own advice, Sevo, because while you obviously can’t connect the dots, that’s what your economic beliefs amount to.

        1. Asshole, THX for proving to be an econ-ignoramus and a fucking slaver besides.
          Fuck off an die along with XM.

          1. Functionally illiterate and rude.

    2. “Do you have a constitutional right not to be taxed on those things?”

      No – by the Taxing Power including, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect …. Duties, Imposts and Excises.. AND “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations”

      As a National ‘Union of States’ government the ‘feds’ main purpose is in international affairs from national defense to national trade. It is a necessary and proper power to protect the USA from international manipulation tactics like fraud. The USA cannot enforce laws in foreign countries nor should they try; but they can control by their own USA-Responsibility effects from foreign elements. The treaty power also plays into that.

  25. In the most difficult, complicated moments, it is good to receive the warmth of those who love you because it ends up being a spectacular incentive to move forward.
    https://bit.ly/3iLO6bD

  26. So if an American company decides to stay and democrats raise corporate taxes they will need to raise prices. Foreign competitors will sell products at lower costs. Consumers will do the rational thing and find the product that suits them at the lowest cost. US companies lose sales, don’t hire, it continues they lay people off, close plants. The downward spiral promising it will help workers?

  27. Joe Biden’s Misguided Attack on Just About Everything American

  28. Just another area where the rich and powerful as well as multinationals have their OWN set of rules and taxes.

    Just remember that if you are too small or poor to afford the legal costs to reduce your taxes, you are SOL and get to pay MORE TAXES for the rich multi-nationals! Your “fair share” is not their “fair share”.

  29. All the retail stores of Haldirams are completely owned and run by the company itself. None of the existing units are franchise

    haldiram franchise

Please to post comments