sactowndog

Yeah no impact on personal taxes is not planned in my proposal. Mine is more around a change in return on capital taxes to align it with the international model and encourage corporate investment into the United States. The primary intent of the changes are 2 fold: 1) penalize and disincentivize labor arbitrage and Mercantilist country policies 2) encourage corporate investment in the United States.

No US entity would put up being on either side. If Jewish settlers tried to take over US land and imposed vigilante justice on Americans we would soon be at war. https://www.timesofisrael.com/settlers-riot-in-west-bank-after-israeli-teen-murdered-palestinian-killed-others-hurt/amp/

Yes I know the tax is called a destination based cash flow tax. What was proposed was a tax on imported product versus a pure cash flow tax that spanned operations and investment. The ability to pass such a tax would need to be paired with an income tax reduction. Doing so splits the business lobby.

Floridians are full of shit. They have supported foot dry policies for Cubans for years.

The last proposal is strictly cash flow based. The previous proposal was on taxing imports. This cash flow tax would tax cash accrued from US investments and Operations minus cash spent on U.S. Operations and Investments. Again any delta is cash exported out of the country. This cash would be taxed at Corporate Income tax rates. Why does this matter? Well if a Corporation spends invests in wages or capital those flows of cash get taxed. With the revised proposal distributions as dividends will get taxed as will stock buybacks. What would be a huge open hole is cash sent overseas. That hole must be closed unless you want tax lawyers to take huge advantage of it. By taxing cash sent overseas companies who generate negative values (spend more on U.S. operations and Investments: ie reinvest profits in the U.S.) become instantly more valuable. Export Import businesses will arise that look to balance cash flows and allow business to buy a foreign component in the U.S. while balancing that cash export by bring cash from foreign sales back into the U.S. The market becomes the medium to enforce fair trade in this case. State mercantilist policies cannot function in this market environment. The one very real danger is companies taking cash flow and parking it in real hard assets like single family homes If you execute this you must prevent companies from investing those dollars in long term ownership of land and buildings not directly related to their operational business If you don’t China and Vietnam will quickly own all our farmland and single family homes

Set the Capital Gains tax rate equal to the income tax rate… one valid argument against the capital gains tax cut is it results in a double taxation on capital. By eliminating the corporate income tax the double taxation argument goes away. The second argument is the lower taxation is intended to reward investment in risk capital. What is left unsaid is the assumption the investment in risk capital would occur in the United States. For most of history companies invested where they were based and where the source of capital originated. That point is no longer true. And worse investors are increasingly investing in foreign stocks. Again that investment may or may not end up in the U.S. So the unsaid assumption is increasingly false resulting in a very inefficient tax preference. So having shown it’s inefficient let’s move to fairness. Those who have the ability to structure their income as Capital Gains get a significant tax advantage compared to others. To maintain their advantage, Hedge fund managers and others donate huge dollars to Congress corrupting our political system. They also keep stepped up basis which essentially allows them to pass generational wealth on to their heirs without ever being taxed. So in today’s world it is both inefficient and unfair. Lastly the vast amounts of untaxed capital gains provides an opportunity to meaningfully address the deficit. Since most of today’s gains may be on Capital subject to corporate income taxes, a transition plan makes sense. In this plan, holders of assets subject to capital gains tax treatment would have one year to execute a wash sale and pay the taxes on the capital gains at today’s lower rate. That wash sale would be computerized and would set the cost basis at death. At death any assets would be subjected to the due income tax at death. If a person did not choose to leverage the wash sale period they would be required to prove the assets cost at death. All windfall tax proceeds from the wash sale period would be required to go towards paying down the national debt.

Well let me take the proposals one by one as I have posted the detail before but you weren’t around… Proposal 1: Eliminate the Corporate Income tax. Most economic theory has individuals investing in the economy. But the theory is just flat out dated. A company like QS may do a stock offering in the U.S. but where they invest those dollars is TBD. It could be in the U.S. but it could as well put the dollars into a Japanese R&D plant. Taxes play a huge role where Global Corporations invest. I worked on a project for a Global Server manufacturer that proposed moving final assembly from a Mexico based contract manufacturer to our U.S. based distribution partners. The proposed plan would have cut the Global Supply chain to the final customer by 10 days, would have improved distribution inventory efficiency and would have increased sales by $150M. The plan was killed due to the tax consequences of building in the U.S.

Sure and prove nothing about Israel’s actions are defensive. They took out the generals and proved IRAN can’t get through their missile defense system. one does have to wonder why Biden doesn’t provide any of that defensive technology to Ukraine.

You might want to consider what Trump proposes if you think the status quo is sustainable

With both political parties and parties globally looking at tariffs and other protective measures, I want to discuss alternatives. Yes I have a preferred solution which I feel is preferable to tariffs and you may disagree. So if you disagree I ask what is your alternative as the current model is not politically sustainable. current model: tarrifs in preferred industry pros: * will protect domestic workers and companies * will improve balance of trade * means to protect strategic industries cons: * will drive an increase in inflation * puts government in a position of choosing winners and losers increasing potential of graft. * economically negative for global efficiency My alternative: Cash flow exportation tax what it is: Tax companies on US cash accrued via operations and investments minus cash spent on U.S. operations and investments pros: * will protect domestic workers in competitive industries from mercantilist countries * export import companies will take on a new market role of balancing imports and exports * will help small business from getting crushed by off shore comp. * market solution which eliminates govt choosing winners and loser industries Cons: * will prevent a U.S. trade surplus as other countries also adopt * requires new accounting modules * some increase in prices depending if offset by income tax reduction * could result in significant land/hard asset inflation if foreign counties were allowed to direct cash into U.S. real estate/land.

Makes sense.. In the 1950s and early 1960s, Buckley opposed federal civil rights legislation and expressed support for continued racial segregation in the South. In Freedom Is Not Enough: The Opening of the American Workplace, author Nancy MacLean states that National Review made James J. Kilpatrick—a prominent supporter of segregation in the South—"its voice on the civil rights movementand the Constitution, as Buckley and Kilpatrick united North and South in a shared vision for the nation that included upholding white supremacy".[120] In the August 24, 1957, issue of National Review, Buckley's editorial "Why the South Must Prevail" spoke out explicitly in favor of temporary segregation in the South until "long term equality could be achieved". Buckley opined that temporary segregation in the South was necessary at the time because the black population lacked the education, economic, and cultural development to make racial equality possible.[121][122][123] Buckley claimed that the white South had "the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races".[122][124][125][126] Buckley said white Southerners were "entitled" to disenfranchise black voters "because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."[127]

Put options are a cheaper approach

Oh of course not. I debated buying an uncovered put but the losses are unlimited and I just decided it wasn’t worth it.

Yeah glad it worked for you. Just in a good spot and don’t need the risk.

Yeah I’m just too risk adverse to f with it.