California, Nestle, And Decentralization

Authored by Antonius Aquinas, annotated by Acting-Man's Pater Tenebrarum,

Goodbye, Socialist Paradise

Nestle USA has announced that it will move its headquarters from Glendale, California, to Rosslyn, Virginia, taking with it about 1200 jobs.

The once Golden State has lost some 1690 businesses since 2008 and a net outflow of a million of mostly middle-class people from the state from 2004 to 2013 due to its onerous tax rates, the oppressive regulatory burden, and the genuine kookiness which pervades among its ruling elites.

 

There has been a remarkable reversal of flow of people and businesses – but California’s ruling elite seemingly remains utterly clueless as to why this is happening and/or doesn’t seem to care. When people and businesses flee from such a well-developed region with such a favorable climate, one should realize that something is probably very wrong. Here is a link to a comprehensive study of the flight of businesses and a million middle class people (net) since 2008 (PDF).

 

A clueless Glendale official is apparently unconcerned about the financial repercussions of Nestle’s departure saying that it was “no big deal” and saw it as an “opportunity,” whatever that means!

The stampede of businesses out of what was once the most productive and attractive region in all of North America demonstrates again that prosperity and individual freedom are best served in a political environment of decentralization.

That the individual states of America have retained some sovereignty, despite the highly centralized “federal” system of government of which they are a part, has enabled individuals and entrepreneurs living in jurisdictions that have become too tyrannical to “escape” to political environments which are less oppressive.

 

The routes people aspiring to become small businessmen in California can take….

 

This, among other reasons (mainly air conditioning), led to the rise of the Sun Belt as people sought to escape the high taxes and regulations of the Northeast to less burdensome (and warmer!) southern destinations.

This can also be seen on a worldwide scale.  The US, for a long time, had been a haven of laissez-faire economic philosophy, which, not surprisingly, became a magnet for those seeking opportunity and a higher standard of living.

No longer is this the case as increasing numbers of companies and individuals are seeking to avoid American confiscatory tax and regulatory burdens and move “offshore” or expatriate to more favorable economic climates.

 

2016 state income taxes – to this one must add a more than 8% sales tax in California, all of which comes on top of federal taxes, plus onerous regulations and extremely litigation-happy “activists”. The only area in which California’s citizens got lucky (via referendum) are property taxes. On the other hand, the state has become extremely real estate bubble-prone, and low property taxes are probably not offsetting the drawbacks of the enormous, malignant housing boom-bust cycles the population centers are experiencing – click to enlarge.

 

Decentralization – the Key to Liberty and Progress

The idea of political decentralization as a catalyst for economic growth has become a part of a “school of thought” in the interpretation of how Europe became so prosperous compared to other civilizations.

After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe for centuries was divided politically among numerous jurisdictions and ruling authorities with no dominant central state on the Continent.

The multitude of governing bodies kept in check, to a large degree, the level of taxation and regulation.  If one state became too draconian, it would lose population to less oppressive regimes.

Just as important, Europe’s governing system was aristocratic and monarchical which has proven to be far more conducive for economic growth than democracies.

 

Germany shortly before its unification in 1871 –  a patchwork of competing small states. Note that this was well after an initial wave of consolidation and centralization – a century earlier, Germany actually consisted of more than 370 independent territories! We previously discussed why highly decentralized polities are the best possible political dispensation for the common man and how extremely conducive they are to liberty and the progress of civilization in this brief missive on secession.

Map via genealogy.net

 

While the economic oppressed can escape among the various states, there is no avoidance from the wrath of the federal government unless through expatriation and that option has become less viable with those leaving still subject to tax obligations.  This, fundamentally, is the crux of the problem and has been since the ratification of the US Constitution in 1789.

The chance that a totalitarian state such as California or the Leviathan on the Potomac would actually reform themselves or relinquish power through legislative means is a mirage.  Nor will revolution work as revolutionaries while appearing altruistic, typically get a hold of the machinery of government to plunder society for their own self interest on a far grander scale than the supposed despots which they replaced!

The only viable option for the productive members of society to seek redress of state oppression is to argue, work, and eventually fight for political secession and the fragmentation of states as much as possible.

Decentralization is the only hope for those opposed to the modern, omnipotent nation state.  Moreover, any notion or effort to salvage the current centralized political system must be abandoned.

 

After Donald Trump’s election, many on the political left in California have begun to talk about secession – normally an idea libertarians (and some conservatives) are more likely to be sympathetic to. One thing the presidential election showed quite clearly was that regardless of the winner, about half of the US population was always going to be deeply unhappy about the outcome. In a patchwork of numerous completely independent territories, people would be free to move to whatever area had the political dispensation they preferred. We confidently predict that socialist experiments would be few and far between if they had to depend entirely on voluntary participants. It should be no surprise that Europe’s socialists are all in favor of centralization and “harmonization” (the latter is new-speak for “let’s introduce the most onerous taxes and regulations everywhere, then no-one can escape our clutches”).

 

Conclusion – The Ideological Battle Comes First

Naturally, before the breakup of the nation state can become a reality, the ideological case for political decentralization must be made.  Public opinion must be convinced of the superiority of a world consisting of many states.  Such a cause, however, will be considerably difficult after generations have been raised and made dependent upon social democracy.

When Nestle and other oppressed businesses and individuals can easily escape the clutches of totalitarian entities like California and, more importantly, the most dangerous government on the face of the earth for freer destinations, then will individual liberty and economic growth be assured.

via http://ift.tt/2mgzwxX Tyler Durden

Baffled WaPo Still Arguing That Only Dumb, White Men ‘Approve’ Of Trump

The Washington Post, still supremely perplexed by how President Trump managed to win the White House, is apparently even more confused now as to why his approval ratings stubbornly refuse to drop into the teens. Nevertheless, the disaffected mainstreamers at WaPo seem to derive some comfort from a handful of recent polls which all peg Trump’s “approval rating” at under 50%, a statistic they victoriously used to declare the following:

“Most Americans don’t think that President Trump is doing a good job.”

Of course, as Gallup pointed out last month, half of the Presidents that have held the White House since World War II failed to win the approval of a majority of Americans over the course of their terms, including WaPo’s beloved President Obama who averaged just 47.9%…but we digress.

Gallup

 

Still, dissatisfied with an approval rating anywhere north of 0%, the ever-skeptical WaPo figured there must be some nefarious explanation for why such a vile person like Trump could possibly avoid impeachment after a full month in the White House, nonetheless enjoy the ‘approval’ of 48% of the electorate (at least according to the Fox News poll).

So they set out on a mission to scour polling methodologies and demographics of respondents for a clue to the Trump approval enigma.  Fortunately they were able to quickly focus in on a pleasant “narrative” that Trump’s sole support emanated from a consolidated group of white (a.k.a. “racist”), male (a.k.a. “sexist”) voters without a college degree (a.k.a. “dumb”).

Wapo

 

Meanwhile, knowing that their efforts to diminish the President’s approval rating would be harshly received by roughly half of the population, they decided to preemptively mock all you dumb, racist, sexist people out there.

I know, I know: You and your friends think he’s doing a great job, and this is more fake news. Or maybe: No one you know likes Trump at all. Or the classic: LOL all the polls were wrong last year, who cares what polls say. To which I’d quickly reply, in order: (1) That’s your bubble, (2) that’s your bubble and (3) actually, national polls were pretty accurate.

And, of course, these same dumb, racist, sexist people who are propping Trump’s approval ratings today are the same ones that voted him into the White House in November.

Those of you who were paying close attention during the general election will recognize whites without college degrees as having always made up the core of Trump’s base of support. (We even wrote about it!) According to exit polling, about half of those who voted for Trump fell into the whites-without-a-college-degree category.

 

So far, it seems as though Trump’s strict adherence to the campaign promises he outlined for that group in the primary has not been successful at wooing many other people to his side. (Contrary to what White House chief of staff Reince Priebus might think, most people generally disapprove of what Trump’s done.) Trump won the primary with that core, powered through the general on the strength of that core of support and now enjoys it as one of the only groups to think he’s doing a good job.

 

That should be easy for anyone to accept — regardless of their bubble.

Wapo

 

But, we’re sure you’re right WaPo…the national polls were spot on in November and dumb, sexist, racist people have suddenly overtaken the American electorate.  In fact, we suspect that if you keep pushing hard on this narrative you’ll be right again in about 4 years.

via http://ift.tt/2lSWLxe Tyler Durden

The Three Trump Administrations

Submitted by Wayne Madsen via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Foreign and national defense ministries around the world, as well as embassies in Washington, DC, are struggling to ascertain who is actually in charge of the U.S. government one month after Donald Trump was sworn in as president of the United States. It is a fair question, considering the conflicting statements issuing forth from the White House, State Department, and the Pentagon.

Suffice to say, there are, essentially, three Trump administrations, all with varying degrees of power.

The first administration and the most visibly powerful is Trump’s inner circle. At the present time, this consists of Trump, chief strategist Stephen Bannon, Trump daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner, special assistant to the president Stephen Miller, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Although Bannon came to Trump from the presidential campaign of Senator Ted Cruz, the former Breitbart News publisher has become a virtual «Svengali», influencing Trump on foreign and domestic policies.

 

The second administration represents the establishment Republicans who endorsed Trump after he secured the Republican presidential nomination. This circle includes White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, the former Republican National Committee chairman, and Sean Spicer, Trump’s press secretary who had the same job at the Republican National Committee under Priebus. Trump’s counselor and former presidential campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, who, like Bannon, came from the Cruz campaign, funds herself often on the outside of the Trump inner circle and more in the company of establishment Republicans Priebus and Spicer. Priebus and Conway, and, to a lesser extent, Spicer, are the eyes and ears of congressional Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan in the White House.

 

The third administration represents the longtime «deep state» interests and is a combination of George W. Bush/Ronald Reagan administration neoconservative activists and powerful Wall Street and Houston/Dallas oil business moguls traditionally linked to Republican politics. While the neocons and business interests do not agree on much, they are taking advantage of the disorganization of the Trump administration to secure their own power centers. Recently, officials of this «third» administration were seen vying for influence and stature at the 2017 Munich Security Conference.

It is clear that the third Trump administration is the one that hopes to take the reins of power if either Trump is forced out of the presidency as a result of impeachment and conviction or ill-health. Representing the international status quo, the third Trump administration, represented chiefly by Vice President Mike Pence and Defense Secretary James Mattis, was very active in promoting NATO, the European Union, and continued sanctions on Russia at Munich. The statements by Pence and Mattis ran counter to the opinions previously aired by Trump. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, opting not to attend the Munich conference, attended a G20 foreign ministers’ summit in Bonn held before the gathering in Munich. This leg of the Trump triad is the one with which the global elites feel most comfortable.

Tillerson, a Texas native and friend of the Bush family and former Secretary of State James Baker, showed that the neocons continue to have clout inside the Trump administration when he dared propose Elliott Abrams, an Iran-contra felon from the Reagan administration, to be his deputy Secretary of State. Abrams’s campaign rhetoric, in which he criticized Trump, resulted in the president vetoing Abrams for the State Department’s number two position. But that did not stop another arch-neocon, the never-confirmed former U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton, from being considered for number two at State and, more recently, as Trump’s national security adviser.

Tillerson’s ambassador to the United Nations, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, has publicly condemned Russia over the Ukraine situation, even though Trump has indicated he wants a rapprochement with Russia. The third Trump administration is full of similar contradictions, with paleo-conservatives like Tillerson willing to hire on neocons like Abrams. Other deep state players within this third leg of the Trump triad include Central Intelligence Agency director Mike Pompeo, who wasted no time traveling to Turkey and Saudi Arabia to pay homage to the vested political interests of both nations, and Director of National Intelligence director-designate, former Senator Dan Coats of Indiana, a longtime friend of Pence.

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn, the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and a retired three-star general, was never a member of the Trump inner circle. In fact, Flynn was closer to the neocons worming their way into the Trump administration. Flynn was the co-author of the book titled «The Field of Flight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies», with one of the most dangerous neocons around, Michael Ledeen, an Iran-contra co-conspirator of Abrams and another neocon vying for influence in the Trump White House, Frank Gaffney.

Ensconced with Pence and Mattis in Munich were the two most hawkish Republican senators who would have Trump adopt even more drastic sanctions against Russia: Senators John McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and fellow committee member Lindsey Graham. McCain used Munich to not only bash Russia but also Trump, while his close friend Graham promised that 2017 would be «the year of kicking Russia in the ass.» The mere fact that McCain and Graham were permitted to represent at Munich a hawkish policy at loggerheads with that of Trump, while Pence remained silent and Mattis championed America’s commitments to NATO and the EU, shows the world that the United States government now speaks through different voices. Joining McCain and Graham to reinforce U.S. defense and financial commitments was Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker and former NATO commander and proposed Trump national security adviser General David Petraeus, previously disgraced by a sex scandal.

Munich provided the third Trump administration with a platform from which to reinforce the «world order» that Trump campaigned against. Governments that had donated handsomely to the Clinton Foundation and made no secret of their abhorrence of Trump as a candidate, were on hand in Munich to warmly embrace Pence and Mattis. Among those in attendance were Saudi Arabia’s wily anti-Iranian foreign minister and former ambassador in Washington Adel bin Ahmed al-Jubeir, Saudi Arabia’s more slyer former intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdulaziz, Qatari foreign minister Shaikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani and defense minister Khalid bin Mohammed al-Attiyah, Bahraini foreign minister Shaikh Khalid bin Ahmed bin Mohammed al-Khalifa, Kuwaiti deputy prime minister Shaikh Khaled al Jarrah al-Sabah, and Moroccan royal cabinet minister Youssef Amrani and the Moroccan king’s counselor André Azoulay. Undoubtedly, these Arab potentates will soon bestow their largesse upon members and corporate contrivances of the Trump family.

Pence and Mattis also rubbed shoulders at Munich with such influential anti-Trump personages as Bono, the U-2 rock band celebrity; former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff; Ohio Governor John Kasich; former Defense Secretary William Cohen; Microsoft founder Bill Gates; Woodrow Wilson Center director Jane Harman; Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution and his wife and chief architect of the 2014 Ukrainian Coup Victoria Nuland; former Senator Joseph Lieberman; International Rescue Committee director David Miliband; Nebraska Republican Senator Ben Sasse; ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff; and Frank Wisner, Jr., a longtime U.S. diplomat with deep state ties and the son of Frank Wisner, Sr., the CIA’s original crafter of «fake news», CIA propaganda disguised as actual news.

And if Trump’s avid anti-globalist supporters believe that their president is «draining the swamp» of their bitterest of foes, they might be surprised that Pence and Mattis were in the company in Munich of Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Trilateral Commission deputy chairman Michael Fuchs, and global political troublemaker George Soros.

The third Trump administration of Pence, Mattis, and Tillerson signaled the world that the actual Trump administration, the one representing America’s «deep state», will continue to run the U.S. government. This is the part of the Trump administration that will continue to conspire with the world’s elite at places like Bilderberg, Davos, Bohemian Grove, Cernobbio, APEC, and G-7. Trump has not «drained the swamp» as he promised. He has merely joined the reptiles already in it. In fact, Eric and Donald Trump Jr., who now head up the Trump Organization, recently opened a luxurious Trump golf course in Dubai. That set the ground for a very amiable meeting at the G20 meeting in Bonn between Tillerson and his counterpart from the United Arab Emirates. The French have a saying for Trump’s «revolution» – «plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose» or «the more things change, the more they stay the same».

via http://ift.tt/2l9aFH6 Tyler Durden

Interest Rate Differentials Increasing Financial Market Leverage To Unsustainable Levels

By EconMatters


We discuss the rate differentials between Switzerland, Britain, Europe, Japan and the United States and how this Developed Financial Markets carry trade is incentivizing excessive risk taking with tremendous leverage and destabilizing the entire financial system in the process in this video. You want to know what is behind weekly market records, borrowed money via punchbowl central bank liquidity. This ends badly every time Central Banks. You can run this model 1 Million iterations, and it plays out the same way, the financial bubble implodes in on itself where liquidity evaporates into nothingness. It is ironic that when the bubble pops, given all the Central Bank infused liquidity to create this bubble paradigm, that all liquidity dries up, and all the sudden there is no real liquidity at all in the system when everyone direly needs it!

 

 

Conclusion:
Central Banks need a coordinated response to figure how they get out of this Developed World interest rate differential problem that risks blowing up the entire Global Financial System because of poor incentives in regards to promoting excessive leverage, poor risk management and imprudent investment decision making processes. My solution would be for the first four Central Banks to tighten Monetary Policy more than the US Federal Reserve. However, the status quo relationship is untenable, and the next alternative would be for the Fed to surprise market participants, showing traders to be on their toes, that there are risks to excessive leverage with borrowed central bank carry funds in a Risk-Off Environment.
© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle    

via http://ift.tt/2lTaN1T EconMatters

Buchanan: Is Secession A Solution To Cultural War?

Submitted by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

As the culture war is about irreconcilable beliefs about God and man, right and wrong, good and evil, and is at root a religious war, it will be with us so long as men are free to act on their beliefs.

Yet, given the divisions among us, deeper and wider than ever, it is an open question as to how, and how long, we will endure as one people.

After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” that Harry Truman said we were.

In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests.

One can only imagine how Iranians or Afghans would deal with unelected judges moving to de-Islamicize their nations. Heads would roll, literally.

Which bring us to the first culture war skirmish of the Trump era.

Taking sides with Attorney General Jeff Sessions against Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, the president rescinded the Obama directive that gave transgender students the right to use the bathroom of their choice in public schools. President Donald Trump sent the issue back to the states and locales to decide.

While treated by the media and left as the civil rights cause of our era, the “bathroom debate” calls to mind Marx’s observation, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”

Can anyone seriously contend that whether a 14-year-old boy, who thinks he is a girl, gets to use the girls’ bathroom is a civil rights issue comparable to whether African-Americans get the right to vote?

Remarkably, there was vigorous dissent, from DeVos, to returning this issue to where it belongs, with state and local officials.

After yielding on the bathroom question, she put out a statement declaring that every school in America has a “moral obligation” to protect children from bullying, and directed her Office of Civil Rights to investigate all claims of bullying or harassment “against those who are most vulnerable in our schools.”

Now, bullying is bad behavior, and it may be horrible behavior.

But when did a Republican Party that believes in states rights decide this was a responsibility of a bureaucracy Ronald Reagan promised but failed to shut down? When did the GOP become nanny-staters?

Bullying is something every kid in public, parochial or private school has witnessed by graduation. While unfortunate, it is part of growing up.

But what kind of society, what kind of people have we become when we start to rely on federal bureaucrats to stop big kids from harassing and beating up smaller or weaker kids?

While the bathroom debate is a skirmish in the culture war, Trump’s solution — send the issue back to the states and the people there to work it out — may point the way to a truce — assuming Americans still want a truce.

For Trump’s solution is rooted in the principle of subsidiarity, first advanced in the 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII — that social problems are best resolved by the smallest unit of society with the ability to resolve them.

In brief, bullying is a problem for parents, teachers, principals to deal with, and local cops and the school district if it becomes widespread.

This idea is consistent with the Republican idea of federalism — that the national government should undertake those duties — securing the borders, fighting the nation’s wars, creating a continental road and rail system — that states alone cannot do.

Indeed, the nationalization of decision-making, the imposition of one-size-fits-all solutions to social problems, the court orders emanating from the ideology of judges — to which there is no appeal — that is behind the culture wars that may yet bring an end to this experiment in democratic rule.

Those factors are also among the primary causes of the fever of secessionism that is spreading all across Europe, and is now visible here.

Consider California. Democrats hold every state office, both Senate seats, two-thirds of both houses of the state legislature, 3 in 4 of the congressional seats. Hillary Clinton beat Trump 2-to-1 in California, with her margin in excess of 4 million votes.

Suddenly, California knows exactly how Marine Le Pen feels.

And as she wants to “Let France Be France,” and leave the EU, as Brits did with Brexit, a movement is afoot in California to secede from the United States and form a separate nation.

California seceding sounds like a cause that could bring San Francisco Democrats into a grand alliance with Breitbart.

A new federalisma devolution of power and resources away from Washington and back to states, cities, towns and citizens, to let them resolve their problems their own way and according to their own principlesmay be the price of retention of the American Union.

Let California be California; let red state America be red state America.

via http://ift.tt/2mgsDNa Tyler Durden

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “Not The Best Of Times” For America, “I Read WaPo And NYT Every Day”

Having regretted her remarks in July 2016 that now-President Donald Trump was "a faker," Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says the US is "not experiencing the best of times" – but the "pendulum" will swing back.

Speaking to BBC Newsnight, in a rare interview, the oldest serving member of the Supreme Court (83 years old) says she is "optimistic in the long run"…

Justice Ginsburg reiterated the importance of the free press.

"I read the Washington Post and the New York Times every day, and I think that the reporters are trying to tell the public the way things are," she said.

 

"Think of what the press has done in the United States," she said citing the Watergate scandal. "That story might never have come out if we didn't have the free press that we do."

Asked what most concerns her about the current climate she said, in an apparent reference to longstanding congressional gridlock:

"Our legislature – which is the first branch of government – is right now not working."

Justice Ginsburg was careful to avoid commenting directly on Donald Trump's presidency.

Asked about the rise of the so-called "post truth world", Justice Ginsburg said:

"I am optimistic in the long run. A great man once said that the true symbol of the United States is not the bald eagle. It is the pendulum.

 

"And when the pendulum swings too far in one direction it will go back.

 

"Some terrible things have happened in the United States but one can only hope that we learn from those bad things."

She cited the example of the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, when more than 110,000 people were put into camps, in the largest official forced relocation in US history.

"That was a dreadful mistake. It took a long time for the United States to realise how dreadful it was. But ultimately the president acknowledged that there was no reason to intern people of Japanese ancestry and Congress passed a bill providing compensation for the people who were interned or their survivors."

Justice Ginsburg said she was encouraged by the Women's March, which saw millions in the US and around the world take part in anti-Trump protests.

"I've never seen such a demonstration – both the numbers and the rapport of the people in that crowd. There was no violence, it was orderly. So yes, we are not experiencing the best times but there is there is reason to hope that that we will see a better day."

Of course, take all of her comments with a pinch of liberal salt as Trump tweeted – "Her mind is shot — resign."

Trump may have to wait a lot longer…

"At my age you have to take it year by year. I know I'm OK. What will be next year?"

 

"I'm hopeful however, because my most senior colleague the one who most recently retired, Justice John Paul Stevens, stepped down at age 90. So I have a way to go."

via http://ift.tt/2lOpSS0 Tyler Durden

Reddit Caught Censoring Posts Using The Term “Rothschild”

It’s the latest chapter of the long, documented saga of Reddit censorship against various forms of political speech over the past several years. In a humorous development, Reddit’s admin team has been caught censoring posts using the term “Rothschild.”

Users on pro-Trump subreddit r/the_donald began noticing the censorship several days ago after a humorous tweet from Lynn de Rothschild on February 21st, 2017 lampooned John Podesta for his work managing Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential election campaign. A test conducted by Disobedient Media on February 23rd has confirmed that Reddit is indeed censoring content referencing the name of the famous banking family.

A sample post referencing the term was immediately archived after submission. Despite being posted “just now” or under one minute prior, the archive revealed that a filter on Reddit had removed the text of the post and hidden it from the “new” section of r/the_donald. The original post and the text can be seen here:

When the account which made the post is logged in, the original text still appears in the body as if the post was not censored. This means that a user might not immediately notice that their posting had been removed.

It is not known at this time why Reddit is censoring posts referencing the Rothschild family name.

via http://ift.tt/2lDCc75 William Craddick

Which Country Punishes Productive People The Most?

Submitted by Daniel Mitchell via The Foundation for Economic Education,

Back in 2014, I shared some data from the Tax Foundation that measured the degree to which various developed nations punished high-income earners.

This measure of relative “progressivity” focused on personal income taxes. And that’s important because that levy often is the most onerous for highly productive residents of a nation.

But there are other taxes that also create a gap between what such taxpayers earn and produce and what they ultimately are able to consume and enjoy. What about the effects of payroll taxes? Of consumption taxes and other levies?

Looking at the Evidence

To answer that question, we have a very useful study from the European Policy Information Center on this topic. Authored by Alexander Fritz Englund and Jacob Lundberg, it looks at the total marginal tax rate on each nation’s most productive taxpayers.

They start with some sensible observations about why marginal tax rates matter, basically echoing what I wrote after last year’s Super Bowl.

Here’s what Englund and Lundberg wrote.

The marginal tax rate is the proportion of tax paid on the last euro earned. It is the relevant tax rate when deciding whether to work a few extra hours or accept a promotion, for example. As most income tax systems are progressive, the marginal tax rate on top incomes is usually also the highest marginal tax rate. It is an indicator of how progressive and distortionary the income tax is.”

They then explain why they include payroll taxes in their calculations.

The income tax alone does not provide a complete picture of how the tax system affects incentives to work and earn income. Many countries require employers and/or employees to pay social contributions. It is not uncommon for the associated benefits to be capped while the contribution itself is uncapped, meaning it is a de facto tax for high-income earners. Even those social contributions that are legally paid by the employer will in the end be paid by the employee as the employer should be expected to shift the burden of the tax through lower gross wages.”

Englund and Lundberg are correct. A payroll tax (sometimes called a “social insurance” levy) will be just as destructive as a regular income tax if workers aren’t “earning” some sort of additional benefit. And they’re also right when they point out that payroll taxes “paid” by employers actually are borne by workers.

They then explain why they include a measure of consumption taxation.

One must also take value-added taxes and other consumption taxes into account. Consumption taxes reduce the purchasing power of wage-earners and thus affect the return to working. In principle, it does not matter whether taxation takes place when income is earned or when it is consumed, as the ultimate purpose of work is consumption.”

Once again, the authors are spot on. Taxes undermine incentives to be productive by driving a wedge between pre-tax income and post-tax consumption, so you have to look at levies that grab your income as it is earned as well as levies that grab your income as it is spent.

All Things Considered

And when you begin to add everything together, you get the most accurate measure of government greed.

Taking all these taxes into account, one can compute the effective marginal tax rate. This shows how many cents the government receives for every euro of additional employee compensation paid by the firm. …If the top effective tax rate is 75 percent, as in Sweden, a person who contributes 100 additional euros to the economy will only be allowed to keep 25 euros while 75 euros are appropriated by the government. The tax system thus drives a wedge between the social and private return to work. …High marginal tax rates disconnect the private and social returns to economic activity and thereby the invisible hand ceases to function. For this reason, taxation causes distortions and is costly to society. High marginal tax rates make it less worthwhile to supply labour on the formal labour market and more worthwhile to spend time on household work, black market activities and tax avoidance.”

Here’s their data for various developed nations.

Keep in mind that these are the taxes that impact each nation’s most productive taxpayers. So that includes top income tax rates, both for the central governments and sub-national governments, as well as surtaxes. It includes various social insurance levies, to the extent such taxes apply to all income. And it includes a measure of estimated consumption taxation.

And here’s the ranking of all the nations. Shed a tear for entrepreneurs in Sweden, Belgium, and Portugal.

Slovakia wins the prize for the least-punitive tax regime, though it’s worth noting that Hong Kong easily would have the best system if it was included in the ranking.

U.S. Ranking

For what it’s worth, the United States does fairly well compared to other nations. This is not because our personal income tax is reasonable (see dark blue bars), but rather because Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were unsuccessful in their efforts to bust the “wage base cap” and apply the Social Security payroll tax on all income. We also thankfully don’t have a value-added tax. These factors explain why our medium-blue and light-blue bars are the smallest.

By the way, this doesn’t mean we have a friendly system for upper-income taxpayers in America. They lose almost half of every dollar they generate for the economy. And whether one is looking at Tax Foundation numbers, Congressional Budget Office calculations, information from the New York Times, or data from the IRS, rich people in the United States are paying a hugely disproportionate share of the tax burden.

Though none of this satisfies the statists. They actually would like us to think that letting well-to-do taxpayers keep any of their money is akin to a handout.

Now would be an appropriate time to remind everyone that imposing high tax rates doesn’t necessarily mean collecting high tax revenues.

In the 1980s, for instance, upper-income taxpayers paid far more revenue to the government when Reagan lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent.

Also, keep in mind that these calculations don’t measure the tax bias against saving and investment, so the tax burden on some upper-income taxpayers may be higher or lower depending on the degree to which countries penalize capital formation.

P.S. If one includes the perverse incentive effects of various redistribution programs, the very highest marginal tax rates (at least when measuring implicit rates) sometimes apply to a nation’s poor people.

P.P.S. Our statist friends sometimes justify punitive taxes as a way of using coercion to produce more equality, but the net effect of such policies is weaker growth and that means it is more difficult for lower-income and middle-income people to climb the economic ladder. In other words, unfettered markets are the best way to get social mobility.

via http://ift.tt/2lDBZB3 Tyler Durden

Starbucks’ ‘Brand Perception’ Takes A Massive Hit After Announcing Plans To Hire 10,000 Refugees

About a month ago, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz decided to ‘take a stand’ in defiance of Trump’s immigration executive order and penned a message to the world vowing, among other things, to hire 10,000 refugees over the next 5 years and “build bridges, not walls, with Mexico”.  Here are some excerpts from the politically charged message drafted by Schultz with “deep concern and a heavy heart”:

I write to you today with deep concern, a heavy heart and a resolute promise. Let me begin with the news that is immediately in front of us: we have all been witness to the confusion, surprise and opposition to the Executive Order that President Trump issued on Friday, effectively banning people from several predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States, including refugees fleeing wars. I can assure you that our Partner Resources team has been in direct contact with the partners who are impacted by this immigration ban, and we are doing everything possible to support and help them to navigate through this confusing period.

 

Hiring Refugees: We have a long history of hiring young people looking for opportunities and a pathway to a new life around the world. This is why we are doubling down on this commitment by working with our equity market employees as well as joint venture and licensed market partners in a concerted effort to welcome and seek opportunities for those fleeing war, violence, persecution and discrimination.  There are more than 65 million citizens of the world recognized as refugees by the United Nations, and we are developing plans to hire 10,000 of them over five years in the 75 countries around the world where Starbucks does business.

 

Building Bridges, Not Walls, With Mexico: We have been open for business in Mexico since 2002, and have since opened almost 600 stores in 60 cities across the country, which together employ over 7,000 Mexican partners who proudly wear the green apron. Coffee is what unites our common heritage, and as I told Alberto Torrado, the leader of our partnership with Alsea in Mexico, we stand ready to help and support our Mexican customers, partners and their families as they navigate what impact proposed trade sanctions, immigration restrictions and taxes might have on their business and their trust of Americans.

Unfortunately, Schultz quickly found out the hard way that while most adult-aged Americans can agree that they like coffee, roughly 50% disagree with his leftist political opinions.  Which, according to Yahoo Finance, has sent the company’s “brand perception” into a downward spiral since January 29th.

The coffee giant’s consumer perception levels have fallen by two-thirds since late January, according to YouGov BrandIndex.

 

The perception tracker measures if respondents have “heard anything about the brand in the last two weeks, through advertising, news or word of mouth, was it positive or negative.” In Starbucks’ case, perception is still overall positive, but significantly lower than it was prior to CEO Howard Schultz published a public letter outlining the company’s plans to give refugees jobs.

 

YouGov says that there’s reason to believe backlash will impact the chain’s bottom line. Two days before Starbucks’ announcement, 30% of consumers said they’d consider buying from Starbucks the next time they were craving coffee, the highest proportion in nearly a year. Now, the percentage is down to 24%, according to YouGov.

SBUX

 

Of course, this isn’t the only time Starbucks has alienated customers by publicly pursuing a controversial political agenda.  As we noted back in March 2015, the Company was forced to abandon its “Race Together” campaign that was intended “to be a catalyst for a larger conversation on race” relations in the United States but really just served to piss off a bunch of anxious people eager to grab their cup of coffee and be on their way.

SBUX

 

Apparently nothing will ever convince some of America’s leftist billionaires that, no matter how rich they become, they will never be able to force their political opinions on Americans who see through their propaganda…just ask all the rich people that just lost a fortune trying to elect Hillary.

via http://ift.tt/2mmffni Tyler Durden