This ought to help his reelection chances

And by 'his', I mean Trump's, not Let's Go Brandon's...

Because what America needs at this point in time, is a massive tax hike. Okay.

Tax the billionaires! Wait, what?

In the recent State of the Union address that I refused to watch, Let's Go Brandon took the usual Democrat jabs at billionaires for not paying enough in taxes. The trope is even more ridiculous when you realize that most billionaires are Democrats. It's even more laughable when you realize the amount of money gained from further taxing billionaires is a drop in the governmental bucket. 

All that aside, a lot of people aren't concerned about the debt because it doesn't directly affect them.  It does actually but it isn't obvious.  Many Democrats and Republicans also believe you can grow your way out of debt.  That's debatable, but it certainly IS NOT true if you tax those who are the engines of growth to the point that growth is not possible. Again, the ridiculousness of the idea is either lost on Democrats or they don't care because it's a a good vote-getting thing to say. Or else, even if they were to enact the legislation to increase taxes, it's most likely they would deliberately leave loopholes for their billionaire buddies anyway.  It's only about the optics. for them. That so many people for generations have not caught onto that is annoying to say the least.

Compounding the stupidity of additional taxation is that it would just go to more spending and not to any sort of fiscally responsibility of debt reduction. That is the real problem, not boogeyman billionaires not paying enough taxes.

The consensus supporting fiscal irresponsibility is embedding rising public debt into the very structure of the US economy. Every year’s delay in addressing the problem makes it harder to solve.

At some point, the fiscal outlook will start to drive long-term interest rates higher, which adds to the debt, which worsens the outlook, and so on.

In the end, what's needed is fiscal responsibility not more division through phony class warfare.

Where does the green energy money come?

Earlier I posted Peter Zeihan's take on the prospects of a transition to clean energy electricity in various places.   Here's Ray Dalio on how it gets paid (spoiler, it's not good news):

California to tax Non-Californians

California is now through the looking glass into insanity.  They'll continue to tax you, even if you leave.  Insane does not begin to describe this:

"You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave." The Eagles, Hotel California

Warren goes unConstiutional

Elizabeth Warren wants to tax and re-tax wealth. Not income, actual wealth. UnConstitutional.

Ignore the redistribution proclivities in the video, even debaters on the stage with Warren said the proposal was unConstitutional.

Kamala Harris tax will destroy Wall Street

Kamala Harris' idea to tax trades to fund her exorbitant campaign promises are (1) not really taxing Wall Street (2) trade suppressing (3) not likely to generate the revenue she claims and (4) likely to drive trades to foreign markets instead.

All-in-all, as dumb as her promises.

Amazon dinged by SCOTUS

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has handed down a ruling that helps everyone but Amazon and their ilk, as well as their consumers. 

Via AP:

The Supreme Court says states can force online shoppers to pay sales tax.

The 5-4 ruling Thursday is a win for states, who said they were losing out on billions of dollars annually under two decades-old Supreme Court decisions that impacted online sales tax collection.

The high court ruled Thursday to overturn those decisions. They had resulted in some companies not collecting sales tax on every online purchase. The cases the court overturned said that if a business was shipping a product to a state where it didn’t have a physical presence such as a warehouse or office, the business didn’t have to collect the state’s sales tax. Customers were generally supposed to pay the tax to the state themselves if they don’t get charged it, but the vast majority didn’t.

This makes brick and mortar stores like Walmart more competitive with president-Trump-unfriendly Jeff Bezos' Amazon because the non-sale-tax-paying discount effectively disappears. That may help rejuvenate brick and mortar retailers in the marketplace, but don't count on it; the trend is going to continue to be towards online shopping.  But Amazon's unfair competitive advantage is effectively gone. Customers in states where sales taxes are high are hurt as well, if they were previously not self-paying the tax.

The most interesting fallout is actually the impact on state sales taxes. A state with a high sales tax, more often than not is going to be a liberal state.  This ruling might in the short term generate more sales tax revenue and/or lower online shopping relative to store visit shopping. But ultimately online sales should normalize; there is a large disincentive to shop online relative to before as a result of newly enforced sales taxes. In a no state sales tax scenario, the impact will be non-existent.  That just a superficial first look, but if states end up with more sales tax, then that could help the federal government potentially offload governmental services to the state level and thereby lower the annual deficit.  

Even at first glance this is not an inconsequential ruling.  More to come for sure.

Bombardier Tariff - A slightly Canadian perspective

The Commerce Department, true to the Trumpian hardball tactics on negotiations, slapped a 220% tariff on Canadian made Bombardier C-Series small jets, surprising Bombardier, the Canadian government, and even the complainant, Boeing.  As a Canadian, am I miffed? Not really.

Via the Seattle Times:

The U.S. Commerce Department sided with Boeing on Tuesday in the jetmaker’s tense trade dispute with Bombardier, imposing a massive tariff that would more than triple the price of Bombardier’s CSeries jets sold to American airlines and could further erode relations between the U.S. and Canada.

Commerce slapped a 219 percent tariff on the planes after concluding that Bombardier’s crucial CSeries sale to Delta Air Lines last year was supported by subsidies from the governments of Canada and the U.K.

“The U.S. values its relationships with Canada, but even our closest allies must play by the rules,” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a statement. “The subsidization of goods by foreign governments is something that the Trump administration takes very seriously, and we will continue to evaluate and verify the accuracy of this preliminary determination.”

A decision in favor of Boeing was widely expected, but the size of the tariff imposed on Bombardier — 219.63 percent, to be precise — shocked all sides, especially the Canadians.

In its petition, Boeing had asked for a 79 percent tariff because of the subsidies.

Surprise!  

While I happen to think that protectionism is bad, I don't think this is necessarily a bad move by the Commerce Department for anyone concerned.  For Boeing obviously it's a win.   Their only real competition prior to the C-Series came from Airbus in the jet aircraft competition space.  

But Boeing had a reason for their complaint - if you are competing against a subsidized competitor you cannot be price competitive and the landscape is unfair to you as a supplier.  Boeing is not supposed to be in competition with the government of Canada. They are supposed compete with other manufacturers.

Bombardier should see this as a wake up call. If you cannot compete without help, then maybe they really aren't competitive and don't belong in that space.  As a company they do some things well.  But not everything.  In fact in some areas there performance is downright disgraceful. I'm not in the mood to defend a company that over-promised and radically under-delivered on something closer to home.

And with that backdrop, if Bombardier is not under the competitive marketplace mandate to deliver on performance, are you sure as a consumer you want to fly on one of their airplanes?  After all there's no race to be first to market here.  So shortcuts on safety are not required. But attention to detail is not exactly mandated either because the government of Canada is not about to let Bombardier fail and therefore attention to detail could easily be replaced by a lackadaisical approach to the effort to build new airplanes.

Some might argue that in order to grow the business into the larger jet aircraft marketplace, some support is needed. But that is something that should come about organically through the determination of shareholders - not at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, Boeing competitiveness and traveler safety.

I should clarify - there's no reason to believe that the Bombardier C-series jets are unsafe. In fact they seem to be a pretty good airplane series.  That's beside the point. Another competitor in the 737 sized marketplace is a good thing also.  What I have an issue with the is the subsidized approach to it.

I think this also helps president Trump.  This is after all an America first approach to a specific issue and that's a big part of what got Trump elected president. It's about foreign competitors being granted unfair advantages at the expense of American jobs.  

Canada and the United States have been good trading partners for a century. That's not going to change.  In such a relationship disputes are not only inevitable, they are healthy because it requires a review of the status quo in terms of what the rules are.  All in all, I'm good with the Commerce Department decision, as a Canadian.  Many of my compatriots are likely to have a more knee-jerk reaction however. 

Bill Whittle versus the Lottery

I play the lottery on occasion, but I believe Bill Whittle is 100% correct on this.  The lottery is not just a 'regressive' tax on the poor, it's a set of cement shoes on your dreams.  Playing the lottery is like selling your dreams for false hope.

That said, spending 3 bucks a week while you continue to play, is not the end of the world.  It's when you replace determination and hard work with a ticket, that you have killed your dreams.

Lotteries and Government Larceny

Not happening, but not the point.

Full disclosure:  I play the lottery from time to time - probably a couple of times per month.  Even though I have a pretty decent income, I'm in the same boat as a very significant portion of the population in that I'm living paycheck to paycheck.  While I am not in an overly expensive house or living beyond my means, I don't have a lot of room for unexpected events and I have not nearly enough retirement savings.  The lottery is a pleasant diversion into hope for a better future, and a way to look beyond my economic circumstances.  I know the reality of a lottery win of any substantial amount is a ridiculously low probability.  Yet I still play because of that glimmer of hope.

But there's a couple of differences between the lottery I play and the lottery you are likely to play, and it boils down to the type of government larceny that you face is different than the government larceny I face.

Department of Education Tripe

Forget calculus, study unicorns and rainbows.

On Friday the Department of Education had a press release which include only a little more than the following *(emphasis added);

The Department of Education today announced the release of its draft Environmental Justice (EJ) strategy. The Department’s draft EJ strategy focuses on healthy learning environments for students, energy-efficient school facilities, sustainability education and environmental literacy, and energy efficiency in the Department’s facilities. This draft EJ strategy is the Department’s plan to address environmental justice concerns and increase access to environmental benefits through the Department’s policies, programs, and activities.

SSOTU: Supposed State of the Union

Oxymoronic SOTU

A quick preview of the president's State of the Union.would be remiss if it did not include the notion that the president is going to take the opportunity to use the opportunity as a campaign speech.  Indeed, many see it as the president's kick-off of his 2012 re-election effort (aside from the myriad of fundraisers that have been going on for months).  The president's speech in that spirit will do three things.  It will argue that the country is hurting and it will require more of his efforts to fight income inequality.  Secondly, in an oxymoron destined to go mostly unchecked, it will call for more spending and lower deficits.  Finally he will work in there somewhere, a narrative that he hopes will hold is that the country is spinning its wheels because of a Do Nothing Congress.

What is that going to look like?

A Mark Steyn column you can't miss

Joe students.

In refuting the Vice President's address to some fourth graders, Mark Steyn brings some startling facts to that table, along with his eloquent delivery.

The money quotes;

Back in March, my National Review colleague Kevin Williamson pointed out that, in order to balance the budget of the United States, you would have to increase the taxes of people earning more than $250,000 a year by $500,000 a year...

So how about people earning a million dollars a year? That’s “a lot of money” by anybody’s definition. As Kevin Williamson also pointed out, to balance the budget of the United States on the backs of millionaires you would have to increase the taxes of those earning more than 1 million a year by 6 million a year.

Click the link above to read it and read right through the second page as there are some other enlightening facts in there worth knowing, and sharing.

Chuck Slowe: For Those On The Far Freaking Left...

From Chuck Slowe, another important reminder for all about the left and how their math is way off.

 For Those On The Far Freaking Left, Either Put Up or Shut Up! I Am Sick Of Your Lies And Half-Truths!  Simple Math Should Not Be That Difficult! When It Comes To Federal Taxes, Get Your Facts Straight! Most Of Your Constituents Pay None! 

 It's a good blog, go check it out. However, he's talking to a brick wall. Since the math doesn't support their argument, they rely on an inattentive audience and obfuscation to get their story line out there. And it works, much less so than it used to, but it still works. In other words - they're not changing. They won't do the math.

Another tax lesson from Canada.

Taxes hurt.

The Ontario provincial government last year announced they would be combining their 8% provincial sales tax with the 5% federal Goods and Services Tax (a VAT tax like the one often hailed of late by progressives as a solution to national debt in America).

The sales tax was replaced on July 1st of this year by Harmonized Sales Tax, bringing the VAT to a combined, and stunning 13% in the province.  Statistics Canada released some inflation numbers last Friday indicating inflation in Ontario for July was 2.9 percent and 1.3 percent (nearly half) was attributable to the tax change. Those inflation numbers are the highest for any Canadian province for July, year over year.

Happy Tax Day America - Some 'Unexpectedly" Type News

I wish I could say something happier today.  But here are some facts, especially selected to annoy you to the point of sipping up lead and spitting out rivets.

Reversing the Quote

I think of lotteries as a tax on the mathematically challenged.

--Roger Jones

I think of taxes as a a lottery win for the work-ethic challenged.

--Nonsensible Shoes

UN - Ditch the Dollar / Save the Planet

Part 1 of 2

If the United Nations ever displayed it's hostility towards the United States more blatantly than it has in the last 48 hours I don't recall the occasion. They also have managed in the same 48 hours to display their latent stupidity.

Shortly after the Reuters report came out saying that the UN was looking for a $750 Billion oil tax to create a "Green New Deal" (a tax that would no doubt significantly hit Americans, and is egregiously ill-timed), they follow it up with the idea of dumping the American dollar as the world's reserve currency. Honestly, I'd encourage the United States to take a "not if I ditch you first" attitude on all of this garbage.

Stepping back to the Green Deal idea for a second, Reuters quotes the head of the U.N. environment agency, Achim Steiner as saying;

"The opportunity must not be lost...If, for argument's sake, you were to put a five-year levy in OECD countries of $5 a barrel, you would generate $100 billion per annum. It translates into roughly 3 cents per liter, it would be almost, if not totally, unnoticed by the consumer," he said, especially since oil prices have fallen from more than $140 a barrel at mid-2008 peaks to about $40.

Where to begin?

(1) What freaking OPPORTUNITY??!? During a major global recession he wants to increase oil taxes? Of course this guy is an environmentalist and knows less than zero about economics. This is NOT in any way shape or form an opportunity to levy more taxes. Unless of course you subscribe to the Emmanuel school of 'don't waste a crisis' panic management.

(2) 3 cents per liter equates to about 11.4 cents per gallon. Depending on the size of the vehicle gas tank, that's anywhere from $1 to $3 extra per fill up. Not to mention impacts on other industries - construction, aviation, plastics, manufacturing, transportation. Furthermore if the United States consumes 25% of the world's oil, it will therefore absorb 25% of that $100 billion per year. True that's peanuts compared to all the money President Obama's putting towards recovery, health care, mortgages, bailouts, etc. But it just might be the straw to break the camel's back.

(3) Global warming is still complete bunk. It doesn't matter what Al Gore says, he's out of touch with reality - he won't even debate except to say debate is over. Tell that to the thousands of scientists who think global warming is not a man-made phenomenon.

(4) The article claims the idea for a Green New Deal was inspired by Roosevelt's New Deal that supposedly ended the Great Depression. Except all it did to end the Depression was to move the end date out by a few years, thus prolonging the depression. Great idea Achim.

This had to be the stupidest idea ever. At least for a few hours until the next UN stupid idea came along shortly afterwards.

(See Part 2)

Charles Rangel - pious fool

I'm late to the party on this one, mainly because you can't really expect more from Chuck. But in case you haven't seen it yet, here is Charles Rangel and his version of "Let Them Eat Cake".

Warning, some mildly crude language.



Marie Antoinette, minus the vocabulary.

Obama - Deficit King

Fox News is reporting President Obama is shifting gears already with the stinkulus bill coming to him for signing. After getting what he wants, what he pushed for, he's going to start claiming spending is out of control? Let's not let this get any traction.

With a $787 billion stimulus package in hand, President Barack Obama will pivot quickly to address a budget deficit that could now approach $2 trillion this year.

He has scheduled a "fiscal-responsibility summit" on Feb. 23 and will unveil a budget blueprint three days later, crafted to put pressure on politicians to address the country's surging long-term debt crisis.

Speaking Friday to business leaders at the White House, the president defended the surge of spending in the stimulus plan, but he made sure to add: "It's important for us to think in the midterm and long term. And over that midterm and long term, we're going to have to have fiscal discipline. We are not going to be able to perpetually finance the levels of debt that the federal government is currently
carrying."

There's no point in adding opinion here is there? It's just ludicrous to try and take this message seriously. Unfortunately that is what the MSM is going to do, and it's up to the conservative blogosphere, and conservative Main Streeters to fight back on this. While the Republicans in Congress seem to have found their voice, we can't expect the MSM to have found their ears for that voice. Everything that can be done to fight the possibility of President Obama gaining traction as a deficit fighter has to be done. Yesterday I mentioned the next fight for conservatives. This is it. And it's important, highly important that we do not allow the President, Democrats and the MSM carry the meme on this - President Obama is not a fiscal responsibility champion.

Everything that can be done to point out that he pushed hard for an $800 trillion deficit, that he had Geithner push for more, that he's not keen on the details of the spending being transparent, MUST be done.

A concerted effort has to be in place prior to February 23rd to discredit Obama's credentials as a budget tamer before the image takes hold. But it also needs to be done in a way that does not somehow play into Obama's hands. We don't want to make it look like he's concerned about this image shaping so he's doing this to prove his bona fides on fiscal responsibility. That just plays into his hand. There needs to be concrete proof that he's wasteful and unconsidered in his fiscal approach.

Perhaps pointing out something like this;

In 2007, suffering yet another year of Budget deficits, Illinois' Governor would propose a Gross Receipts Tax that would impose a tax on Gross Revenue of business and services rather than Gross Income. The bill was opposed by nearly every business group, consumer group and legislature in Illinois. The tax would have been the largest tax increase put forth by any state in history and many experts testified that the tax would have destroyed Illinois' economy. To give you an idea of how the tax would have worked, take for instance an individual real estate agent. If this agent had sold $1 million in real estate during the year, they would have expected pre-tax commissions of $35,000 - $70,000.

The GRT would have imposed a 1% tax on the gross sales, or around $10,000. Although the tax was 1% of Gross Receipts, the tax to the agent would have been as high as 30%. For business dealing with high volume, low profit margin items such as real estate, automobiles or furniture, the tax would have destroyed their profits and operating incomes. When it became apparent the bill would fail, the Governor advised his supporters to vote against the bill to save their re-election bids. Senator Obama, although questioned repeatedly, refused to acknowledge whether or not he supported the GRT.

Ultimately, we have to ask the question - why the sudden interest in fiscal sanity? The reason I suspect, is to use it as a prelude to a massive across the board tax increase to finance the deficit caused by the stimulus bill about to be passed. As an added bonus for President Obama , if inflation starts to heat up in 2010, the tax increase can be used as a form of coolant on that inflation or hyper-inflation and thereby smooth things over.

Don't forget President Obama is a liberal, and that tax-and-spend mentality is still there. The only difference from his predecessors is that he is started out with the spending and will worry about the taxing part later. It's the political version of shoot-first-ask-questions later. It's cart before the horse. Except both the cart and horse are facing the wrong way on a one way street.