We discussed ONE WORLD ONE VAT TAX on several occasions as the MOVING FORWARD US CORPORATE TAX REFORM.  The reason a Trump or Clinton will not use the term VAT----is steeped in the history of US being an ANTI-TAX NATION.  We were founded on throwing out EAST INDIA COMPANY that multi-national corporation that kept charging too much tax and keeping colonists enslaved and not citizens with powers of representation.

VAT simply says---the global corporations will pay no tax nor will those global 1% ---so 99% of US and global citizens will pay LOTS AND LOTS OF TAXES.  TRUMP is installing VAT without using that phrase because he is PRETENDING to be a right wing conservative----

It was BUSH that coined the phrase REPATRIATION TAX with a goal of ending the 20th century corporate tax policy of earnings by overseas US corporations needed to be taxed.  TRUMP as BUSH is simply using this phrase REPATRIATION TAX as a method of handing a CARROT to the 5% PLAYERS shareholders.  Remember our discussion last week where US wages are being deregulated from being cash wages to stock options/bonuses ----with a goal of changing cash wages to BED AND A MEAL.  That is to where those 5% PLAYERS THINKING THEY ARE WINNERS are going.

TERRITORIAL TAX is a good name for this VAT TAX.  Since the US is MOVING FORWARD to being a COLONIAL ENTITY and not a sovereign nation---we become that TERRITORY-----on the NORTH AMERICAN continent.  This is why we call Baltimore, MD USA now Bloomberg Foreign Economic Zone 2 North America------TERRITORIAL TAX symbolizes colonial taxation to be enforced by multi-national corporations inside US Foreign Economic Zones.  This is TRUMP----OBAMA simply tried to directly install VAT----

ALL THIS NATIONAL MEDIA AND FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% THINK TANK DISCUSSION ON REPATRIATION TAX IS HIDING THE GORILLA -IN-THE-ROOM TAX ISSUE.


This TERRITORIAL TAX ----which will become that VAT TAX-----will indeed tax all our first world, developed nation wages in cash----and turn them towards workers handing their salaries over as TAXES.


“Territorial Tax” Is a Zero Rate on U.S. Multinationals’ Foreign Profits, Threatens U.S. Revenues and Wages


Under a “territorial” tax system, U.S.-based multinational corporations wouldn’t pay U.S. corporate taxes on their foreign profits. That is, they would face a zero U.S. corporate tax rate, and such a massive, permanent tax advantage for foreign profits over domestic profits would not help the U.S. economy. It would create a powerful incentive for companies to shift profits and investments overseas, could harm many U.S. businesses and workers, and would likely increase deficits. Corporate tax reform should focus on tax policy changes that would help create jobs, reduce deficits, and raise incomes, especially for workers whose incomes have been close to stagnant while corporate profits have soared — rather than on the largely unsupported claims of U.S.-based multinationals that they are “uncompetitive” with foreign-based corporations and need a large tax cut on their foreign profits.  Responsible international tax reform would reduce corporate tax avoidance and the current tax advantage that foreign profits already enjoy, and there are a number of sound ways to do that. A territorial tax moves in the opposite direction.[1]  


“Territorial” Means “Zero”

The current tax system taxes U.S.-based multinationals on a so-called “worldwide” basis, meaning that they owe U.S. tax on the income they generate both at home and in other countries. The statutory corporate rate on both U.S. and foreign profits is 35 percent, but extensive tax breaks reduce companies’ actual tax rates far below that. Also, U.S.-based multinationals get a credit for the foreign taxes they pay on their foreign income so they aren’t taxed twice on the same income.



Unlike a pure worldwide tax system, the U.S. tax code doesn’t tax foreign profits in the year they are earned.  Instead, foreign profits do not face U.S. taxes until companies “repatriate” them — that is, declare those profits as having been brought back to the United States. This means that multinationals can keep foreign profits overseas to defer U.S. tax indefinitely.  


A territorial tax would exempt U.S. multinationals from tax on their foreign profits.  (They would still face U.S. corporate taxes on their domestic profits.) President Trump and Republican congressional leaders have proposed a territorial tax, with a domestic corporate tax rate of 20 percent (see chart).



Powerful Incentive to Shift Profits Offshore

U.S.-based multinationals already have a strong incentive to artificially report having earned their profits offshore in order to defer paying U.S. taxes. The incentive is especially strong for multinationals to declare their profits as having been earned in zero-tax or low-tax “tax haven” countries, where the corporation would pay little or no tax to the foreign government, either.  Permanently exempting U.S. multinationals’ foreign profits from tax would increase that incentive. The tax avoidance savings that corporations would reap would favor profitable U.S. multinationals, especially those in industries that can easily move profits overseas, such as pharmaceuticals and software.


Risks Shifting Investment Offshore and Lowering U.S. Wages


If a lower U.S. tax rate on foreign profits encourages U.S. corporations to move investments offshore, it could hurt U.S. workers’ wages and productivity. As Congressional Research Service tax economist Jane Gravelle testified before Congress, “[Moving to a territorial system] would make foreign investment more attractive.  That would cause investment to flow abroad, and that would reduce the capital which workers in the United States have, so it should reduce wages.” 


Anti-Abuse Rules Unlikely to Mitigate Revenue Loss

Adopting a territorial system would lose revenue over the long run because firms would shift profits overseas (both by changing where they report the profits on paper and by moving investments offshore) that they would otherwise report in the United States and on which they would pay U.S. tax.  A territorial system without strong rules to mitigate these losses could cost roughly $130 billion over ten years, compared to the current system and tax rates, Treasury estimates. Tax experts are quite skeptical that policymakers could craft effective anti-avoidance rules. As noted international tax expert Stephen Shay has warned, “Those of us who have been doing this business for 30 years on the legal side” would find ways to avoid a territorial tax, and “When [lawmakers] don’t fully understand that and the companies come in and say it won't happen, I'm here to tell you it will happen.”   


Case for Territorial Taxation Is Weak

Proponents often argue that a territorial system would improve U.S. firms’ “competitiveness.” But these claims have little to do with overall U.S. job creation or wages for ordinary workers, and are not supported by the evidence:

• Evidence that U.S. multinationals are at a competitive disadvantage is thin. Territorial tax proponents claim that U.S.-based companies are at a disadvantage overseas because they, unlike companies based in territorial-tax countries, face corporate taxes on profits earned outside the country. But many of the large multinationals that have lobbied for a territorial tax — such as Google, Apple, and Pfizer — are posting record profits and valuations.

 

• Nor are U.S. multinationals more highly taxed on their worldwide income than corporations with headquarters in other developed countries.  U.S. multinationals’ average tax rates worldwide are similar to the average tax rates that corporations headquartered in other “Group of Seven” countries face.

• A zero tax rate on foreign profits would make U.S. domestic and small businesses less competitive relative to large U.S. multinationals.  Large U.S. multinationals can pay tax lawyers millions in fees to find ways to report U.S. profits as being offshore in order to get the zero tax rate on “foreign” profits under a territorial system.  That would give them a huge tax advantage over U.S. businesses — including small businesses — that don’t have foreign operations and can’t orchestrate complex tax avoidance maneuvers.

 

• Keeping corporate headquarters in the United States for tax purposes doesn’t mean many ordinary workers would benefit.  Claims that cutting U.S. companies’ worldwide tax rate would encourage more firms to locate or keep their tax residence in the United States and thereby increase the number of high-quality jobs at U.S. corporate headquarters are dubious. Currently, whether or not companies can claim U.S. tax residence doesn’t depend on where they locate their management operations. Even if territorial tax rules were crafted so multinationals had to locate their management operations here to claim U.S. tax residence and qualify for the U.S. territorial tax (under which profits they booked abroad were exempt from U.S. tax), that likely wouldn’t have a large impact on U.S. jobs. That’s because, for many firms, the quality of the U.S. infrastructure, workforce, and legal system may be a more important factor than taxes in corporate decisions on where to place company headquarters.
• Meanwhile, even if a zero U.S. tax rate on multinationals’ foreign profits did increase the number of jobs at U.S. corporate headquarters, it could come at the cost of jobs for other workers if multinationals moved investment offshore to get the zero U.S. tax rate on foreign profits.  Not every worker can be a CEO or manager or provide services to corporate headquarters.

 

• Finally, there’s little evidence that encouraging multinationals to expand overseas would create jobs in the United States.  Some proponents argue that a territorial system would expand investment in the United States even if it also encouraged U.S.-based multinationals to invest more offshore, citing a study that finds U.S. multinationals’ investment abroad correlates with their investment in the United States. But that study does not show that firms’ overseas investment causes them to expand their domestic investment: a rise in foreign demand could cause both U.S. and foreign investment to grow at the same time.  And the study itself notes that some earlier studies found that increased overseas investment by multinationals is linked to less investment in the United States.

____________________________________________



Here in Baltimore we have already been existing under this ZERO TAX RATE these few decades as global Wall Street Baltimore Development, Greater Baltimore Committee, and global hedge fund Johns Hopkins installed these OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE EAST INDIA MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS' tax structure without being told.  Baltimore is that sucking global corporation and yes it kills any ability to have a local REAL small business economy-----we have PATRONAGE ONLY local economy as a CARROT to 5% players but that too is going away. 

This kills 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE and our ability to be in any economic activity-----but as well, our global labor pool 99% who are being encouraged to start small businesses will go under the bus as well.  Just because US Foreign Economic Zones will be filled with Chinese et al global corporate campuses and global factories---does not mean our 99% immigrant citizens will get that PATRONAGE to create small businesses.

PATRONAGE ECONOMIES ARE ONLY NEEDED WHEN GLOBAL BANKING 1% NEED TO HAVE 5% PLAYERS-----MOVING FORWARD ENDS THE NEED FOR THOSE 5% PLAYERS black, white, and brown citizens.

Most US citizens know these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA global corporations have not paid taxes at all---and have been great big tax welfare queens.

'A zero tax rate on foreign profits would make U.S. domestic and small businesses less competitive relative to large U.S. multinationals'.

Since the major shareholders in what used to be US corporations are now foreign national global 1% or foreign nations-----it is indeed those global 1% getting that repatriation tax as STOCK DIVIDEND.  Our US 5% players may get a one-time-bonus but the bulk of REPATRIATION TAXES from global corporations operating overseas goes to those global 1% partners.

THIS IS WHERE THE TERM 'TRANSITION TAX' comes into play-----this is what far-right wing global banking 1% Clinton neo-liberals are posing.


MADE IN CHINA MADE IN AMERICA has Trump feeding his global 1% BFFs revenue that should have fueled our US city recovery from US corporations going overseas----all while he PRETENDS to be helping his right wing conservative voter base-----

Trump Tax Plan Could Give $70 Billion Windfall to Foreign Investors

The White House says its tax plan would boost American workers. It might benefit foreign investors a whole lot faster.

ByEmily Stewart
Oct 28, 2017 10:40 AM EDT
Trump's Proposed Tax Plan Makes These 5 Stocks Big Winners

The White House says its tax plan would boost American workers. It might benefit foreign investors a whole lot faster.


The tax proposal put forth by Trump administration officials and Congressional Republican leaders could translate to a $70-billion-a-year tax cut for foreign investors, according to a new analysis from the Tax Policy Center. The report comes a week after the White House released an estimate its plan could boost household incomes by $4,000 annually, a claim that has been disputed by many economists.


The nine-page framework GOP leaders -- the so-called "Big Six" -- unveiled in September calls for cutting the corporate tax rate to 20% from 35%, which would reduce corporate taxes by an average of $200 billion a year, or about $2 trillion over 10 years.

Estimating foreign investors hold about 35% of U.S. corporate stock, that means they would save $70 billion annually on taxes in the short term, explained Steve Rosenthal, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and author of the analysis.


"The windfall to foreigners from lowering U.S. corporate income tax rates from 35 percent to 20 percent is exceptionally large," Rosenthal, a veteran tax attorney, wrote.


That $70 billion is three times the $23 billion in annual savings the Tax Policy Center has estimated middle-income families would save annually under the GOP's incomplete tax framework.A White House spokeswoman declined to comment on the analysis.
Rosenthal arrives at his estimate that foreigners own 35% of U.S. stock using Federal Reserve reports on foreign portfolio stock and foreign direct investments. He takes only the corporate reduction into account, leaving aside the likely repatriation tax holiday and other likely tax changes.


"Shareholders will be the principal beneficiaries of the corporate tax cuts, and since foreign investors are big shareholders, they stand to benefit significantly," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics in an email.


Nobel Prize-winner and liberal economist Paul Krugman in a New York Times op-ed on Wednesday said Rosenthal's observation is one everyone "somehow missed" in examining the White House tax plan. "This observation should transform discussion of the whole issue, at least among economists, although my cynical guess is that Republican-leaning academics will ignore it," he wrote.


There are ways corporate taxes could be reformed to limit the size of the windfall to foreigners, such as keeping the current 35% rate but adopting full corporate tax integration with a deduction on dividends paid to shareholders. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has been an advocate of such a measure.

But it's easier to enact tax cuts than it is tax reform, as Republicans are quickly learning. President Donald Trump on Monday tweeted there would be no change to the amount American workers can save on their 401(k) retirement accounts, killing an idea the GOP was considering as a revenue raiser. They've already scrapped the border adjustment tax, which taxes imports and exempts exports, which would have accounted for $1 trillion in revenue.


"Everyone agrees that a corporate rate cut creates benefits for shareholders, especially in the short term. Many shareholders are foreigners. Thus, a corporate rate cut will create benefits for foreigners," said Scott Greenberg, senior analyst at the Tax Foundation. But that doesn't mean workers couldn't see a boost as well.


"It's not mutually exclusive to say workers benefit and shareholders benefit," he said. "The question isn't where people keep their money, the question is if additional investment in the United States is more profitable on an after-tax basis."



The White House last week released an analysis making the case its corporate tax cuts will boost household incomes by $4,000 to $9,000 annually. Many economists panned the report. Jared Bernstein, chief economist to former Vice President Joe Biden, slammed it as "non-credible, trickle-down fairy dust." Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers called it "absurd."


The Wall Street Journal editorial board on Monday evening released an op-ed arguing that tax cuts will help workers. It seemed to hedge on the Trump administration's $4,000 mark, citing other estimates that tax cuts would translate to $1,000 to $3,500 in boosted income.



Rosenthal in an email to TheStreet said cutting corporate taxes to raise wages is a "dubious proposition" but emphasized that another big question is the timeline. Shareholders will benefit from tax cuts now. Workers, well, eventually.


"If it would occur, when? I think we measure the time in decades, not years," he said. "Remember the Big Six plan would cut taxes for corporate investments that already have been made, which is a windfall to existing investors, including foreign shareholders. Perhaps the tax cut also will benefit future shareholders (and, arguably, future workers), but that's not what we ought to count on today."

____________________________________________


If our US corporations now enfolded into OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% multi-national corporations sell products manufactured overseas in Foreign Economic Zones-----they simply don't intend to sell them to the US-----since our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE will be too poor to buy products------we are those overseas sweat shop global corporate campus workers only having time to work 15-18 hours a day for a bed and a meal.  NO PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED BY WHAT MAY LOOK LIKE US CORPORATIONS WILL BE COMING TO US ---so no TRANSITION TAX will occur.

The only CONSUMERS in Foreign Economic Zones are the global corporate campuses and global factories-----the citizens do not own small businesses that are not PATRONAGE BUSINESSES-----none being MANUFACTURERS OF PRODUCTS.

What the TRANSITION TAX will become is this--------the costs of foreign corporations expanding their corporations into US Foreign Economic Zones will get a TAX BREAK -----much like our US IMPORT/EXPORT BANK that handed Federal tax money to help US corporations expand overseas.

So, the TRANSITION TAX will end up being a tax on the 99% of WE THE PEOPLE that will go to subsidize foreign corporations moving into US Foreign Economic Zones.

Shared economy: Many more Americans are participating, but why?

The first major study of the impact and scope of the shared economy found 72 percent of Americans have used at least one of these services. 


99% WE THE PEOPLE must remember, as our wages decline----as robotics and artificial intelligence takes all job categories----we are being pushed into having NO ACCESS TO CASH---NO MONEY so we cannot be CONSUMERS.  If we are not consuming----but rather working on global corporate campus for a bed and a meal-----there will be NO PRODUCTS SOLD in US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones----so no TRANSITION TAX OR REPATRIATION TAX as described below.

Transition Tax will be a tax subsidy to incoming global foreign corporations.


   'The zone's location and the Lao government's generous tax incentives are attracting manufacturers to build production facilities there'. 

'Transition Tax

Any corporate tax reform that alters the tax treatment of future overseas profits will likely include a one-time transition tax on existing foreign profits as part of the shift to the new tax system.  A transition tax or “toll charge” would clean the slate of existing tax liabilities.  Such a tax would be mandatory: multinationals would have to pay U.S. taxes on existing foreign profits whether they repatriate them or not.  To achieve this, transition taxes would deem all foreign profits to have been repatriated and thus subject to the transition tax rate.  (Most proposals would allow the companies to pay the tax over a period of years.)  Future overseas profits would then be taxed under the new rules agreed to as part of tax reform'.  

As we said yesterday---it is that $20 trillion national, state, and local US Treasury and state/local municipal bond debt that will be the TRANSITION TAX that pays foreign corporations to move to US Foreign Economic Zones.  China was sold $2 trillion in US Treasury bonds ---not because the US needed the money---but it was a down-payment to encourage Chinese corporations and global 1% and their 2% to expand into US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.

Remember, that $20 trillion in US Treasury bond debt is all of 99% WE THE PEOPLE'S public trusts, retirements, pensions, social programs----THAT IS THE TAX BASE PAYING THIS 'TRANSITION TAX'.



Our dollar, China's $2 trillion problem
By Colin Barr
February 10, 2011



Could the United States and China be even more co-dependent than we thought?


On Wednesday Fed chief Ben Bernanke became the first American official in recent memory to admit just how deep a hole we have dug ourselves with our biggest creditor.


Bernanke said China holds at least $2 trillion of U.S. government bonds. That is more than double the widely cited official figure, which is published monthly by Treasury.


As staggering as Bernanke’s number is, his coming clean comes as a relief. As ugly as our debt problem is, it creates problems for China too — what to do with all that paper?


And maybe, just maybe, the more facts that are out there, the better decisions policymakers will eventually make. Emphasis on eventually.
“The monthly Treasury series is wildly inaccurate, but it’s good that someone’s finally willing to say so with the doors open,” said Derek Scissors of the Heritage Foundation. “Perhaps with a reasonable figure available, we can see more clearly the implications of China’s dependence on the dollar.”


Officials in the two countries have been trading jabs lately over each other’s unpopular policies. Both have been easy with money in a bid to spur growth, but Bernanke has taken a beating in China and elsewhere for the recent spike in global food inflation.


For its part, China has spent years holding down the value of its currency to boost exports – a program that is drastically out of favor here with unemployment at 9%.


The dollars it has purchased in pursuing that policy now expose it to big risks: Scissors notes that China stands to lose hundreds of billions of dollars on its Treasury purchases should the yuan appreciate significantly, as U.S. policymakers would like.


Of course, there is also the question of just how the U.S. will pay off on all its promises. Testifying before the House Budget Committee, Bernanke said in response to a question from Rep. Tom McClintock that China holds as much as a quarter of outstanding U.S. government debt – “more than $2 trillion” of Treasury securities.


The comment drew a double-take from McClintock, a California Republican. Apparently referring to the latest official count released by Treasury, McClintock asserted that China’s holdings amounted to around 9.5% of outstanding U.S. government bonds.


McClintock is apparently referring to the latest official count, publicized monthly in Treasury’s major foreign holders table. Those figures, from November, show that China owns $896 billion of Treasurys.


Both McClintock’s and Bernanke’s figures foot fairly well with the $9 trillion of Treasury debt outstanding at the end of the third quarter, according to the Fed’s Flow of Funds report.


But Bernanke’s figure is far more revealing, in that it sheds light on the true size of China’s stake in keeping the U.S. economy rolling. It is in line with the estimate made by China watchers such as Scissors, who says Chinese holdings of Treasury and agency debt – that issued by the mortgage investors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – likely range between $2 trillion and $2.5 trillion.


Why do the Chinese hold so many U.S. bonds? It’s not because they like us, sad to say. The huge Treasury hoard is a function of China’s huge trade surplus – Scissors estimates China’s 2010 balance of payments surplus at $471 billion, or $39 billion a month – and the lack of an alternative to the dollar.


“There is no unified European bond market, and Japan is closed to large Chinese purchases,” he writes. “The only market large enough to absorb such huge surpluses is American bonds.”


Scissors has been questioning the official Treasury tally for some time. He has noted, for instance, that China’s official Treasury holdings remained static over the past year – ranging between $846 billion and $929 billion – even as the country ran its massive surplus. How is that possible?


Scissors contends it did so in part by purchasing Treasurys through other countries. Over the past year, Treasury’s tally of Treasurys held in the U.K. – including in the tax havens of the Channel Islands – has surged by $355 billion.


Those sorts of purchases will only continue till China changes its ways — which isn’t going to happen tomorrow, not with a national leadership change set for next year.


“China will not break the yuan’s peg to the dollar until it can resolve the matter of soaring dollar holdings, and that can be done only through financial reform,” Scissors writes.
___________________________________________

The TRANSITION TAX was sold by far-right global banking 1% Clinton/Obama neo-liberals as JOBS, JOBS, JOBS in our US cities but it is the BUILD AMERICA BONDS that created a junk-bond status for our US Treasury and yes, foreign nations and their global 1% are the biggest holders of BUILD AMERICA BONDS.

While TRUMP pretends to MAKE AMERICA great again PRETENDING to his right wing conservative voters to be CUTTING TAXES-----both are MOVING FORWARD the same ONE WORLD ONE TAX UNITED NATIONS tax policies for all FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.

The FEDERAL IMPORT/EXPORT BANK subsidized the expansion of US corporations overseas -----and now global banking 1% are subsidizing global foreign corporations to COME TO NORTH AMERICA to build global corporate campuses.


'Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also proposed in 2015 a framework for international tax reform and endorsed the broad transition tax approach in President Obama and Chairman Camp’s frameworks'

This is of course what a CHUCK SCHUMER supports as a far-right wing global banking 1% neo-liberal----and PORTMAN of OHIO that far-right wing Bush neo-cons.

Build America Bonds - BABs 

DEFINITION of 'Build America Bonds - BABs'

Taxable municipal bonds that feature tax credits and/or federal subsidies for bondholders and state and local government bond issuers. Build America Bonds (BABs) were introduced in 2009 as part of President Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to create jobs and stimulate the economy. BABs attempt to achieve this by lowering the cost of borrowing for state and local governments in financing new projects.

BREAKING DOWN 'Build America Bonds - BABs'In general, there are two distinct types of BABs: tax credit bonds and direct payment bonds. Tax credit bonds offer a 35% federal subsidy of the interest paid to bondholders, while direct payment bonds offer a similar subsidy in the form of a tax credit paid to the bondholder.


We wanted to leave this post without formatting just to show the tricks our Federal government---here is the US TREASURY are doing to make it harder and harder for US citizens to share information on public policy.  We are constantly having to spend literally hours formatting these posts to US government agencies regarding policy. 

PLEASE GOGGLE THIS PAGE AND SEE WHAT OUR US FED/US TREASURY IS SELLING AS TRANSITION TAX BUILDING FUNDS FOR OUR US CITIES.


June
2010
http://www.treas.gov/recovery/babs.shtml



Build
America
Bonds
Are
Helping
State
and
Local
Governments
Finance
Infrastructure
Projects
and
Create
Jobs
While
Saving
Taxpayers
Billions
Basics
of
the
Build
America
Bonds
Program



•
New
financing
tool
for
state
and
local
governments:
The
Recovery
Act
of
2009
created
an
innovative
new
tool
for
municipal
financing
called
Build
America
Bonds
(BABs),
which
are
taxable
bonds
for
which
the
US
Treasury
Department
pays
a
direct
subsidy
of
35
percent
of
the
interest
costs
to
the
issuer.
BABs
have
helped
state
and
local
governments
finance
public
capital
projects
at
lower
borrowing
costs
________________________________________


Here is BARRON'S ASIA-------HAWKING those US Treasury bonds as BUILD AMERICA to our Asian national governments and global 1% -----and of course they are tied to our US city infrastructure projects--- there are those PUBLIC K-12 SCHOOLS---TEXAS AS BALTIMORE tied our public schools to junk-bonded US Treasury bond fraud.

This is tied to the PIMCO MUNI-BOND FRAUDS we discuss often------we want to make sure our US citizens educate broadly to see the connections to all these tax policies.

• Up and Down Wall Street

Buy American, as in Build America Bonds
By
Randall W. Forsyth

Updated Aug. 10, 2010 12:01 a.m. ET


WITH BOND YIELDS AT RECORD LOWS, income investors are looking far and wide for higher returns. But some of the best, low-risk returns can be found close to home.


Build America Bonds have been around for more than a year but BABs rarely have been as cheap—that is high-yielding—relative to corporate securities. Indeed, some triple-A-rated BABs are yielding more than triple-B corporate debt obligations.


BABs are taxable municipal securities on which the federal government pays the state and local issuers a subsidy of 35%. That is in lieu of granting tax exemption on the interest paid on traditional munis. There also have been other taxable munis issued by states and localities under various programs, which matter mainly to the issuer, not the investor.


But owing to negative publicity about state and local finances and uncertainties about the continuation of the BABs program, all taxable municipals have lagged corporate bonds' heady recent rally.


For instance, Hallettsville, Tex., Independent School District recently issued taxable muni bonds backed by the Texas Permanent School Fund, one of the strongest municipal credits in the nation with top triple-A ratings. They yielded 5.53% in 2027, some 270 basis points (2.7 percentage points) over the Treasury 10-year note, the closest active maturity.


By comparison, Ken Woods, head of Asset Preservation Advisors, points out that in the corporate market, Orange & Rockland Utilities, a unit of Consolidated Edison (ticker: ED), privately placed bonds due in 2040 at a 5.50% yield, a lower absolute yield and a much narrower spread versus comparable Treasuries of 150 basis points. These corporate bonds are rated on Baa1 by Moody's Investors Service and single-A by Standard & Poor's—middling investment-grade ratings and a far cry from triple-A.



That's not a unique instance. For example, Wellpoint (WLP) Monday priced 30-year bonds, also rated Baa1 and single-A by Moody's and S&P at 5.875%, or 187.5 basis points over the Treasury long bond; Hess (HES) sold bonds rated Baa2 and triple-B, due in 2041, at 5.62%, or a spread of 160 basis points; and Corning (GLW) sold Baa1/triple-B-plus debt due in 2040 at 5.71%, or 175 basis points over Treasuries. These are all considerably longer in maturity than the Texas school district bonds and significantly lower rating, but only a trivial extra margin in yield.


While these medium-grade corporate bonds yield nearly the same as top-grade taxable munis, corporates carry much higher default risk. The 10-year cumulative default rate on triple-B-rated municipal debt has been a mere 0.16%, which compares with 0.05% on triple-A-rated corporates, according to Moody's. The default rate on triple-B corporates was 4.85%--more than 30 times the default rate on comparably rated municipals.


The higher yields on BABs reflect their lesser liquidity and amount outstanding, factors that make them less attractive to big institutional investors such as pension funds and insurance companies, the traditional stalwarts of the corporate bond market. In addition, the BABs program will expire at the end of the year without Congressional action, which also would make these taxable munis relatively scarce in the marketplace, and thus less liquid.


Woods, of Asset Preservation in Atlanta, says investors with $1 million can assemble a diversified portfolio of BABs with a 10-year average maturity yielding 5%. In addition, investors who buy federally taxable munis from issuers in their own state typically avoid their state's income tax on the interest.


For the rest of us with a little less to spare, there are alternatives.
The Eaton Vance Build America Bond Fund (EBABX) is available, though it carries a sales load of up to 4.75% and an expense ratio of 0.95%. A more economical option is the PowerShares Build America Bond exchange-traded fund (BAB), with a 0.28% expense ratio. The ETF's yield based on its most recent distribution was 5.62%--higher than the 4.74% yield on the iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate ETF (LQD), which closed at a five-year high price Monday.


A still higher-yielding alternative is a leveraged closed-end fund, the Nuveen Build America Bond Fund (NBB), which yields 7.02% based on its most recent distribution. Friday, it closed at a small, 2.56% premium to its net-asset value. The leverage increases both the return and the risk, however. The fund will get competition shortly from a competing closed-end fund, the BlackRock Build America Bond Trust, which will be launched this month.



In a world where yields on Treasury, mortgage and corporate debt have collapsed to once-unthinkable levels, BABs offer a rare combination of higher yields while improving credit quality.


WITH VALUE SCARCE in much of the bond world. Jerry Paul, chief investment officer of Essential Investment Partners in Denver, offers a way to tap the vaunted expertise of Pimco—at a discount, right on the New York Stock Exchange.


Shareholders of Montgomery Street Securities Income Fund (MTS) recently approved turning over the management reins to Pimco, the powerful asset manager headed by Bond King and Barron's Roundtable member Bill Gross. MTS, a venerable closed-end fund that dates back to 1973, differs from most of Pimco's open-end funds, which typically are sold with a sales load, and its closed-end funds, which usually command significant premiums to the NAVs, in that it's relatively cheap,


Montgomery Street Securities Income Fund trades at discount of 5%, so you get you pay 95 cents for $1.00 of assets. By contrast, the Pimco Total Return A (PTTAX) shares are sold with a 3.75% maximum load, which means you'll pay $1.00 for 96.25 cents of assets. MTS also charges a 0.76% expense ratio, less than Pimco Total Return's a 0.90% expense ratio. Virtually any closed-end fund with "Pimco" in its name commands fat premiums, up to the incredible 54% on the Pimco High Income Fund (PHK.)


Paul reckons that MTS may resemble Harbor Bond Fund (HABDX), a bargain fund that is subadvised by Pimco and sports similar, five-star performance ratings to the flagship Pimco Total Return fund, but sells directly with no load and has a relatively low 0.57% net expense ratio.


He also opines that Pimco will ramp up the relatively restrained leverage of 4.57% on Montgomery Street's portfolio to pump up its return. Meantime, Paul figures collecting a 5.4% yield ain't bad. Not surprisingly, Paul's clients have MTS in their portfolios.

________________________________________


If 99% WE THE PEOPLE only listen to national media our the propaganda captured NGO'S pretending to be revolutionary are selling we all will indeed be YAHOOS.

OBAMA'S Transition TAX came at the same time US FED and US Treasury began these BUILD AMERICA BONDS---and this is what made our US Treasury bond debt soar to #20 trillion. 

THIS IS THE TRANSITION TAX----AND 99% WE THE PEOPLE AND OUR GLOBAL 99% LABOR POOL ARE PAYING IT---NOT GLOBAL CORPORATIONS.

And yes, it is illegal for elected sovereign politicians to literally sack our US Treasury with debt to hand over to multi-national corporations and global banking 1%.  IT IS TREASON---AND A COUP.

This US, state, and local treasury bond debt will be used to build global corporate campuses and global factories no matter foreign or multi-national-------

OUR MARYLAND REPUBLICAN LARRY HOGAN IS PUSHING ALL THIS HARD AS IS OUR DEMOCRATIC BALTIMORE MAYOR PUGH----SAME GLOBAL BANKING 5% PLAYERS black, white, and brown citizens.


Remember the 2008 MOODY'S ET AL STOCK RATING FRAUDS with subprime mortgage loan ratings----they are doing the same these several years with BUILD AMERICA BONDS----pretending US cities are AAA that are close to bankruptcy ----because AAA ratings assure TOP TIER TRANCHE payment while 99% of WE THE PEOPLE investors in bonds LOSE.

Who Owns the U.S. National Debt?


The Biggest Owner Is You!


All of us will have to pay the nation's debt.


Photo: Thomas Barwick/Getty Images
US Economy
By Kimberly Amadeo
Updated January 24, 2018

The U.S. debt is $20 trillion. Most headlines focus on how much the United States owes China, one of the largest foreign owners. What many people don’t know is that the Social Security Trust Fund, aka your retirement money, owns most of the national debt. How does that work, and what does it mean?


The Debt Is in Two Categories
The U.S. Treasury manages the U.S. debt through its Bureau of the Public Debt.


The debt falls into two broad categories: Intragovernmental Holdings and Debt Held by the Public. 


Intragovernmental Holdings.

 This is the portion of the federal debt owed to 230 other federal agencies. It totals $5.6 trillion, almost 30 percent of the debt. Why would the government owe money to itself? Some agencies, like the Social Security Trust Fund, take in more revenue from taxes than they need. Rather than stick this cash under a giant mattress, these agencies buy U.S. Treasurys with it.



By owning Treasurys, they transfer their excess cash to the general fund, where it is spent. Of course, one day they will redeem their Treasury notes for cash. The federal government will either need to raise taxes or issue more debt to give the agencies the money they will need. 


Which agencies own the most Treasurys? Social Security, by a long shot. Here's the detailed breakdown as of December 31, 2016.

• Social Security (Social Security Trust Fund and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund) - $2.801 trillion
• Office of Personnel Management Retirement - $888 billion
• Military Retirement Fund - $670 billion
• Medicare (Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund) - $294 billion

• All other retirement funds - $304 billion
• Cash on hand to fund federal government operations  - $580 billion. 

Debt Held by the Public. 


The public holds the rest of the national debt ($14.7 trillion).  Foreign governments and investors hold nearly half of it. One-fourth is held by other governmental entities. These include the Federal Reserve, as well as state and local governments. Fifteen percent is held by mutual funds, private pension funds and holders of savings bonds and Treasury notes. The remaining 10 percent is owned by businesses, like banks and insurance companies. It's also held by an assortment of trusts, companies, and investors.


Here's the breakdown of holders of the public debt as of December 2016:

• Foreign - $6.004 trillion
• Federal Reserve - $2.465 trillion
• Mutual funds - $1.671 trillion
• State and local government, including their pension funds - $905 billion
• Private pension funds - $553 billion
• Banks - $663 billion
• Insurance companies - $347 billion
• U.S. savings bonds - $166 billion
• Other (individuals, government-sponsored enterprises, brokers and dealers, bank personal trusts and estates, corporate and non-corporate businesses, and other investors) - $1.662 trillion. 

This debt is not only in Treasury bills, notes and bonds but also Treasury Inflation Protected Securities and special state and local government series securities.



As you can see, if you add up the debt held by Social Security and all the retirement and pension funds, nearly half of the U.S. Treasury debt is held in trust for your retirement. If the United States defaults on its debt, foreign investors would be angry, but current and future retirees would be hurt the most.



Why the Federal Reserve Owns Treasurys



As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve is in charge of the country's credit. It doesn't have a financial reason to own Treasury notes. So why did it double its holdings between 2007 and 2014?


That's when it ramped up its open market operations by purchasing $2 trillion in Treasurys. This quantitative easing stimulated the economy by keeping interest rates low. It helped the United States escape the grips of the recession.


Did the Fed monetize the debt?

Yes, that's one of the effects. The Fed purchased Treasurys from its member banks, using credit it created out of thin air. It had the same effect as printing money. By keeping interest rates low, the Fed helped the government avoid the high-interest rate penalty it would usually incur for excessive debt.
The Fed ended quantitative easing in October 2014. As a result, interest rates on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note rose from a 200-year low of 1.442 percent in June 2012 to around 2.17 percent by the end of 2014. F



On September 29, 2017, the Federal Open Market Committee said the Fed would begin reducing its Treasury holdings in October. Expect long term interest rates to rise as a result. For more, see FOMC Meeting Statement Summary.



Foreign Ownership of U.S. Debt


In November 2017, China owned $1.2 trillion of U.S. debt. It's the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury securities. The second largest holder is Japan at $1.1 trillion. Both Japan and China want to keep the value of the dollar higher than the value of their currencies. That helps keep their exports affordable for the United States, which helps their economies grow. That's why, despite China's occasional threats to sell its holdings, both countries are happy to be America's biggest foreign bankers. China replaced the United Kingdom as the second largest foreign holder on May 31, 2007. That's when it increased its holdings to $699 billion, outpacing the United Kingdom's $640 billion. 

Ireland is third, holding $329 billion. The Cayman Islands is fourth, at $269 billion. The Bureau of International Settlements believes it is a front for sovereign wealth funds and hedge funds whose owners don't want to reveal their positions. So are Luxembourg ($218 billion) and Belgium ($115 billion). 


After the Cayman Islands, the next largest holders are Brazil, Switzerland, the UK, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, and India. They each hold between $140 and $265 billion. (Sources: "Treasury Bulletin, Monthly Treasury Statement, Table 6. Schedule D-Investments of Federal Government Accounts in Federal Securities, U.S. Department of the Treasury, December 2016.  “Treasury Bulletin, Table OFS-2, Ownership of Federal Securities", U.S. Department of the Treasury, December 2016.)

_____________________________________________

We will end this week's discussion on tax policy by returning to the first day discussion of FDR AND WOODROW WILSON and those 100 year ago corporate tax policies ----90% corporate taxes with TARIFF laws that many Americans back then hated as GIVE-A-WAYS

While many Americans simply look at national media's articles on TRUMP TAX REFORM they are not looking at the TARIFF REFORMS tied to TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT----and ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for all Foreign Economic Zones including our US cities.

IT WILL BE A TAX ON THE POOR AND 99% OF US WE THE PEOPLE WILL BE THOSE THIRD WORLD POOR!


Wonkblog


Why Trump’s trade plan could be a tax on the poor

By Ana Swanson January 13, 2017



President-elect Donald Trump often argues that competition from China has hurt America’s working class. Economists broadly agree — a widely cited paper published last year found that growing imports from China between 1999 and 2011 cost 2.4 million American jobs, with roughly 1 million in manufacturing.
Yet Trump’s proposed plan to get tough on China — which involves tariffs, additional taxes that are placed on imported goods to make American-made products more competitive — could easily hurt America’s working class as well. A study published Thursday by the Council of Economic Advisers, a group of economists appointed by President Obama, demonstrates how tariffs place a heavier burden on poorer people, especially working-class families and single parents.


During the campaign, Trump proposed a 45 percent tariff on Chinese products. In December, a senior member of Trump’s transition team said the administration was mulling a tariff of up to 10 percent on foreign goods across the board to boost U.S. manufacturing, according to CNN.


It’s unclear just how likely these tariffs are to materialize. At times since election, Trump advisers such as Commerce secretary nominee Wilbur Ross have discouraged speculation, calling tariffs a last resort for countries that will not negotiate. Yet Trump has also appointed to his Cabinet vocal China critics such as Peter Navarro, who in the past argued for using tariffs as a “defensive” measure.


If tariffs do go into place, they would likely place a heavier burden on poorer people, as the CEA study suggests. That’s in part because spending on tradable goods — the kind of products that would be taxed under a tariff, such as food and apparel — make up a larger proportion of the overall spending of poorer households, as past economic research shows.


The new study looks at tariffs that are already in place in the United States, collecting more than $33 billion a year. For their analysis, the economists match tariffs collected by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol with 381 categories of goods that people report buying in surveys done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Their calculation looks just at final goods, not at the effect of higher tariffs on intermediate inputs.



According to the economists' estimates, the poorest 10 percent to 20 percent of households in the United States currently pay about $95 a year in tariffs, while middle-income households pay $190 and the richest 10 percent pay more than $500.


However, when you take how much rich and poor households earn into account, the difference in costs looks more extreme. In the chart below, the economists show the burden imposed by current tariffs as a percentage of after-tax household income.

The burden is heaviest for those in the bottom 10 percent of American earners: more than 1.5 percent of their after-tax household income. That’s a lot, given that those households are making less than $10,000 a year.
In fact, removing this burden would have a larger impact on poor households than the tax cuts that were passed in 2001 and 2003, the economists say.


If tariffs grew by 10 percentage points across the board, as Trump’s transition team has proposed, the lowest-earning fifth of Americans could pay roughly $300 more per year for household purchases, while middle-income Americans would pay roughly $600-$700 more, the study estimates. That would be a substantial burden in the United States, where the median household income before tax is just a little more than $50,000 a year.



This study was carried out by economists that advise President Obama. However, economists widely agree that tariffs hit America's poorest families the hardest.
The CEA study cites two main reasons for this. For one, poor people spend more of their income on the kind of goods that are affected by tariffs, like clothing, food and furniture.



In addition, in many categories of goods, products on the cheaper end are subject to higher tariffs, the economists say. That’s true for home furnishings, apparel and other household goods, including baby clothes, rubber boots, olive oil, bicycles and bicycle helmets, wine, and caskets.


It’s not exactly clear why this came about, but it could be largely unintentional. Tariffs are negotiated industry by industry, and often different values are a random legacy of many decades of various corporate and government officials battling it out across the negotiating table. That’s why ice hockey gloves are duty free, but ski gloves are taxed at nearly 6 percent and golf gloves at nearly 5 percent, for example.


Still, working families and women especially appear to have lost out in those decades of trade negotiations. When it comes to clothes, including suits, sweaters, sportswear, pants and undergarments, women’s goods are currently subject to far higher tariffs than men’s, the study shows. Men’s suits face a tariff of 14 percent, for example, while women’s suits are taxed at 23 percent. Tampons and diapers are also subject to heavy tariffs.


If Trump's administration imposes a tariff of 10 percent or 45 percent across the board, those distinctions would disappear. But working families may still stand to lose out.


Trump’s contention is that the threat of imposing tariffs will allow the United States to renegotiate trade terms and get a better deal for the working class. That may be the case, but tariffs in themselves could also weigh heavily on their fortunes.

The music video YOU CAN NEVER GO BACK HOME echos the statement below.  While we are discussing corporate tax policy REPATRIATION has ties to those 5% to the 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA who worked overseas in Foreign Economic Zones and/or UNITED NATIONS military and diplomacy.


'The Rev. Ken MacHarg, who served as a pastor in six countries around the world, says that he tells people that moving overseas will “mess you up for the rest of your life. You’re constantly torn between those places, and you’re a changed person.”'


This is the problem for 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE and those 5% US EX PATS being sent home during these several years as US CITIES become those  FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.   Our US EX-PATS coming home after these few decades building Foreign Economic Zones overseas may think they do not care if AMERICA is made that INDEPENDENT CITY STATE ruled by global 1%.  That's how things have been overseas-----why not in AMERICA?


REAL LEFT social progressives fought against US corporations being allowed to go overseas, we shouted for our displaced US citizens to rebuild our US cities AND we fought to have those REPATRIATION CORPORATE TAXES come back to maintain our US cities.  

THE NEXT PHASE OF MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE WITH 5G SMART CITIES AND GROWING CLIMATE CHANGE AND DECLINING NATURAL RESOURCES WILL BE DIFFERENT THAN THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF BEING THAT EX PAT TO GLOBAL 1% EMPIRE-BUILDING.

We hope our 99% of US EX-PATS coming home understand how MOVING FORWARD changes in 21st century---the exclusions of mass categories of employment with all revenue spending going to building planetary mining slave colonies------no resources for those not inside a SMART CITY.



Expat Repatriation Blues: Expats Struggle With the Dark Side of Coming Home


By
Debra Bruno

Apr 15, 2015 9:36 am ET

Nobody tells you about this part.
Expats are good at preparing for their next exciting post, whether it’s in Burundi or Boston. They’ll study the language, find the best place to live, read up on the food, the climate, and the currency.


But the deep, dark secret of the expat experience is that coming home – repatriation – can be even harder than leaving. “When you go abroad, you expect everything to be new and different,” says Tina Quick, author of “The Global Nomad’s Guide to University Transition.”  And when you return home, you expect life to be basically the same. “But you have changed, and things back home have changed since you’ve been gone,” she says.


Robin Pascoe, author of “Homeward Bound: A Spouse’s Guide to Repatriation,” compares it to wearing contact lens in the wrong eyes.  “Everything looks almost right,” she says.
Many expats coming home go through a period of grief, says Ms. Quick, until they “give in to the homesickness” for their host country.


Maria Foley says when she and her family repatriated to Canada from Singapore, she assumed it would be a smooth transition. “We moved back to the same house; we were driving the same car,” she says. “And it hit me like a punch in the gut. It took two years until I felt like a human being again.”


The struggle of repatriation is not just one of psychological adjustment. Multinational companies are finding that while they are using plenty of resources to prepare employees for an international transfer, they are less attentive to the other end of the move. The result, according to research by Brookfield Global Relocation Services, is that about 12 percent of employees leave the company within a few years of repatriation. While that percentage is similar to the overall attrition rate for companies, the number is a concern, “given the inordinate cost of international assignments,” says Diane Douiyssi of Brookfield.


Ms. Douiyssi thinks the companies “would want to work harder to retain these key employees.” The amount that companies invest in expat employees, both financially and developmentally, “make them valuable assets to the company,” which is why an attrition rate that’s similar to other employees is “somewhat surprising,” she says.


Sheldon Kenton, chief commercial officer for Cigna Global Health Benefits, likewise notes that a “fairly significant” number of expat employees leave companies shortly after repatriation. “That seems like a bit of a waste,” he says. “And I think it’s a financial cost. We always look at a three-year assignment of an expat as a million-dollar investment. If an employee leaves six months after returning, that’s a relatively poor return on investment.”


Many companies are starting to pay more attention to this, Mr. Kenton says. Although there hasn’t been much research on the post-repatriation situation of employees, he suspects that the high costs of moving employees has “forced companies to take a better look at this.” Part of the problem is that the human resources employees are often the last to hear about an expat employee being repatriated, he says. Cigna clients tell him that the goal is for both companies and employees to spend time figuring out the next step. “Don’t think about what you’re going to do the week after you’re repatriated.”

Ms. Pascoe says that her adjustment problems led her to write “Homeward Bound.”  Ms. Foley began a blog called “I was an expat wife” as a form of “online therapy” to help, as she writes, “work through my ambivalence about repatriating, revisit my glory days, and share whatever snippets of hard-earned wisdom I picked up in my years abroad.” She’s also writing a book about the experience, based on a survey of more than 1,000 people who responded to her questions about repatriation.


Naomi Hattaway, an American who moved first to India and then to Singapore, wrote a post on her blog called “I am a triangle,” that went viral, receiving more than 400 comments. She ended up starting a Facebook group, also called “I Am a Triangle,” so that people going through similar experiences could connect. A “triangle,” she says in her original post, is a person who might be from a “circle country” but move to a “square society,” that is totally different. Eventually that person evolves into a triangle, with elements of both cultures. Moving home doesn’t change that, she says.
Lois Bushong, who grew up abroad as the child of missionaries and spent much of her own life abroad, became a therapist to help other expats deal with this transition. One of the founding members of the group, Families in Global Transition, Ms. Bushong says that the dearth of counseling help for expats coming home – particularly those who might have had to be evacuated from countries having crises – was one of her motivations.


“I thought, ‘Is somebody going to help them, talk to them?’” she asks. From her counseling, she also wrote a book, “Belonging Everywhere and Nowhere: Insights into Counseling the Globally Mobile.”


Other expats find that their alienation – sometimes called reverse culture shock – can take a more serious turn. Nneka Okona, a 28-year-old from Atlanta, says that after teaching English and writing in Spain for almost a year, she moved to the Washington, D.C., area to live with her father, who had moved to the city for a job. One of her friends, who had lived abroad for two years, warned her that moving back to America would be hard.


“I kind of shrugged it off,” she says. “The first month was amazing, all the food and soda and little things I missed so much.” But after a month, she says, it was like a light switch turned off. “For the first four weeks, I felt like I was visiting. Then I realized I really do live here. I was not going back anywhere. That was when things started to get really hard,” she says.


Ms. Okona stopped leaving the house and cut herself off from friends. Finally, her father asked her if she wanted to see a therapist. When she did, she was diagnosed with “situational depression,” or a depression caused in her case by her inability to adjust to the transition of her new life. Ms. Okona is also planning her next stint abroad, this time as a graduate student in England.


Ms. Bushong, the therapist, says it’s easy for returning expats to feel isolated. “Nobody gets it. It’s like having somebody dying and there’s no funeral and you’re not supposed to talk about it. You feel guilty talking about it.”


Perhaps the hardest transitions happen with expats who didn’t especially want to leave. George Eves, the Moscow-based, British-born founder of Expat Info Desk, an online resource for expats, says that many companies limit the amount of time employees can spend in a particular posting. “They may say you have to go home or go somewhere else. But you might say, I actually like living here,” he says.


Ms. Hattaway recommends that before they leave, expats undergo a ritual where they visit and say goodbye to each aspect of their life abroad. Ms. Foley says that some people may also want to revisit the place later on to see how things are changed. When she returned to Singapore for a visit, she realized she had become a tourist in the place that had been her home. “I had been aching for years, but being there as a tourist put that into place for me,” she says.


In other instances, a trailing spouse might refuse to set down roots because she knows her spouse’s career might take her away again. Ms. Bushong had one client who refused to unpack, buy furniture, or make friends for two years after the repatriation. “She kept waiting for him to come home and say, ‘We’re moving again,’” she says.


Children, who may appear to be excited to return home and reunite with old friends, sometimes hide their identities as Third Culture Kids. Ms. Foley, who had lived for years in France with her family, says that her children were fluent in French. But when one daughter took a French class back in Canada, she spoke French with a strong Anglo accent.


“Years later, I asked her about it,” says Ms. Foley. Her daughter answered, “There was nothing wrong with my accent. I faked it,” she recounts. “Otherwise she would stick out as being different.”


Ms. Hattaway says that a teacher in her daughter’s Virginia school confronted her at a parent-teacher conference because the girl, she says, didn’t know anything about U.S. history or currency. Apparently the daughter told the teacher the family had moved to Virginia from Florida, which was technically true. But what she neglected to mention was that the years before that were in Singapore and India. “She decided it was too much of a hassle,” Ms. Hattaway says.


Many repatriated expats find it hard to connect to friends again at home. Ms. Hattaway says that expat life draws people together: “You’re in a circle or tribe with other expats. But back home, you’re only one in a sea of people. Some of them have never left, some don’t have passports. And you look like everyone else,” she says.


Tina Quick, who lives outside of Boston, says that although she’s been back in the States for 10 years, she still doesn’t have a best friend, someone she could call in an emergency.  She didn’t understand why she never heard from the other soccer parents she met after the season ended. Her husband reminded her that their children had all gone to elementary school together.


The Rev. Ken MacHarg, who served as a pastor in six countries around the world, says that he tells people that moving overseas will “mess you up for the rest of your life. You’re constantly torn between those places, and you’re a changed person.”


Expats need to know that the toughest assignment of all might be coming home. “Send me home?” asks Ms. Pascoe. “It’s easier to go to Bangkok than to repatriate in Vancouver.”

__________________________________________

Today in US we are talking about REPATRIATION TAXES along with US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. Today's MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS that used to be US CORPORATIONS are now EAST INDIA COMPANY global 1%. If 99% US WE THE PEOPLE allow global corporate campuses and global factories to take our US city economies---it would be the same as EAST INDIA CORPORATION moving into our AMERICAN COLONIAL economies. Early America kept those global corporations AT BAY so we could build our American local economies. The policy of REPATRIATION----whether tied to taxation of global corporations OR bringing global corporations into our US cities ----

is the OPPOSITE OF OUR AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND TEA PARTY TAX PROTESTS.

The HAMILTON US FED with those ROBBER BARON US PRESIDENTS back in ROARING 20s------were setting the stage for CORPORATE RAIDING----sending our US domestic corporations overseas to enfold them into EAST INDIA COMPANY-LIKE MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS.


REPATRIATING THESE OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% CORPORATIONS TODAY?  REALLY?

We remind that UK THE GUARDIAN is captured media-------of course this corporations was funded by the KINGS AND QUEENS and their banks.  This article is too long to post please Goggle to remind our 99% US citizens what we were trying to escape in coming to America.


'It was not the British government that seized India, but a private company, run by an unstable sociopath'

The East India Company: The original corporate raiders

William Dalrymple
Wed 4 Mar 2015 00.59 EST Last modified on Wed 29 Nov 2017 17.26 EST


For a century, the East India Company conquered, subjugated and plundered vast tracts of south Asia. The lessons of its brutal reign have never been more relevant


William Dalrymple
Wed 4 Mar 2015 00.59 EST Last modified on Wed 29 Nov 2017 17.26 EST
 
One of the very first Indian words to enter the English language was the Hindustani slang for plunder: “loot”. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, this word was rarely heard outside the plains of north India until the late 18th century, when it suddenly became a common term across Britain. To understand how and why it took root and flourished in so distant a landscape, one need only visit Powis Castle.


The last hereditary Welsh prince, Owain Gruffydd ap Gwenwynwyn, built Powis castle as a craggy fort in the 13th century; the estate was his reward for abandoning Wales to the rule of the English monarchy. But its most spectacular treasures date from a much later period of English conquest and appropriation: Powis is simply awash with loot from India, room after room of imperial plunder, extracted by the East India Company in the 18th century.


There are more Mughal artefacts stacked in this private house in the Welsh countryside than are on display at any one place in India – even the National Museum in Delhi. The riches include hookahs of burnished gold inlaid with empurpled ebony; superbly inscribed spinels and jewelled daggers; gleaming rubies the colour of pigeon’s blood and scatterings of lizard-green emeralds. There are talwars set with yellow topaz, ornaments of jade and ivory; silken hangings, statues of Hindu gods and coats of elephant armour.


Such is the dazzle of these treasures that, as a visitor last summer, I nearly missed the huge framed canvas that explains how they came to be here. The picture hangs in the shadows at the top of a dark, oak-panelled staircase. It is not a masterpiece, but it does repay close study. An effete Indian prince, wearing cloth of gold, sits high on his throne under a silken canopy. On his left stand scimitar and spear carrying officers from his own army; to his right, a group of powdered and periwigged Georgian gentlemen. The prince is eagerly thrusting a scroll into the hands of a statesmanlike, slightly overweight Englishman in a red frock coat.


The painting shows a scene from August 1765, when the young Mughal emperor Shah Alam, exiled from Delhi and defeated by East India Company troops, was forced into what we would now call an act of involuntary privatisation. The scroll is an order to dismiss his own Mughal revenue officials in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, and replace them with a set of English traders appointed by Robert Clive – the new governor of Bengal – and the directors of the EIC, who the document describes as “the high and mighty, the noblest of exalted nobles, the chief of illustrious warriors, our faithful servants and sincere well-wishers, worthy of our royal favours, the English Company”. The collecting of Mughal taxes was henceforth subcontracted to a powerful multinational corporation – whose revenue-collecting operations were protected by its own private army.


It was at this moment that the East India Company (EIC) ceased to be a conventional corporation, trading and silks and spices, and became something much more unusual. Within a few years, 250 company clerks backed by the military force of 20,000 locally recruited Indian soldiers had become the effective rulers of Bengal. An international corporation was transforming itself into an aggressive colonial power.



Using its rapidly growing security force – its army had grown to 260,000 men by 1803 – it swiftly subdued and seized an entire subcontinent. Astonishingly, this took less than half a century. The first serious territorial conquests began in Bengal in 1756; 47 years later, the company’s reach extended as far north as the Mughal capital of Delhi, and almost all of India south of that city was by then effectively ruled from a boardroom in the City of London. “What honour is left to us?” asked a Mughal official named Narayan Singh, shortly after 1765, “when we have to take orders from a handful of traders who have not yet learned to wash their bottoms?”

It was not the British government that seized India, but a private company, run by an unstable sociopath
____________________________________________
Hmmmm, this sounds familiar to MOVING FORWARD today.  It seems the 99% of US citizens expecting corporate repatriation taxes will end being tax revenue- soaked themselves if we do not stop global corporate campus and global factories claiming our US cities.

'The collecting of Mughal taxes was henceforth subcontracted to a powerful multinational corporation – whose revenue-collecting operations were protected by its own private army'.

We shared the results of BUSH-ERA REPATRIATION TAX policy looking much like TRUMP'S.  In both they tout all kinds of good things from jobs to housing to schools which never appear.  Below is the CLINTON global banking 1% neo-liberal think tank CENTER FOR BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES giving 99% WE THE PEOPLE the same propaganda.  It is critical to understand the layers of policy made to look beneficial with the worst of policies hidden. 

We notice that NONE OF THESE are tied to not wanting these global corporations tied to power of infrastructure building in our US cities.  It is all tied to being GOOD CORPORATE SOCIAL BENEFIT.

Let's be clear----both far-right Bush neo-cons and far-right Clinton neo-liberals are MOVING FORWARD the same infrastructure building and will use what is being called a REPATRIATION CORPORATE TAX for the same outcomes----building global corporate campuses and global factories---but know what?  It is all tied to US TREASURY BOND DEBT ----$20 TRILLION DOLLARS all of which is our 99% public trusts, Federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

Global banking 1% pols and 5% players say CORPORATE REPATRIATION TAX----we say US TREASURY AND STATE MUNICIPAL BOND DEBT is staged to pay for all these infrastructure building in US cities.



Three Types of “Repatriation Tax” on Overseas Profits: Understanding the Differences


UPDATED
October 7, 2016

BYChye-Ching Huang[1]

Two proposals to address multinational corporations’ large stockpile of offshore profits — a transition tax on those profits and a repatriation tax holiday — may appear similar at first blush but are opposites in many ways.  A transition tax is a sound policy that would raise revenues for infrastructure investments or other uses; a repatriation holiday is a tax cut that loses revenue and consequently cannot pay for anything.  A third proposal, a “deemed repatriation,” could resemble a transition tax or a repatriation tax holiday, depending on the tax rate.  All three types of proposals are sometimes referred to as “repatriation taxes,” but it is important to distinguish among them because of their very different effects on revenue and multinationals’ incentives to shift profits offshore.  (See Figure 1.)


U.S.-based multinationals do not pay U.S. corporate tax on their foreign profits until the profits are “repatriated” to the United States.  As a result, many firms use accounting maneuvers to report as much of their profits offshore as possible to avoid U.S. taxes.  Multinationals have roughly $2.6 trillion in profits booked offshore, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates.  Both a transition tax and a repatriation tax holiday try to deal with these offshore profits — but in very different ways.



Heightening the confusion, several proposals have claimed to link each of these approaches to boosting investment in U.S. infrastructure.  But while a transition tax can pay for such added investment, a repatriation holiday cannot.  As Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has stated, “Tax holiday proposals designed to pay for [replenishing the Highway Trust Fund] sound great until you look at the details.  Saying you’re going to use something that loses money to pay for anything is just wrong.  Therefore, saying you’re going to use it to pay for infrastructure is just bad policy, plain and simple.”



Similarly, White House National Economic Council Director Jeff Zients has said the Administration is “not supportive of a voluntary repatriation holiday. . . .  It costs a lot of money” and has emphasized that the Administration’s proposal for a transition tax “is very different than a repatriation holiday, which we believe is bad policy.”

Part of corporate tax reform, which can be designed to permanently reduce or eliminate incentives to shift profits offshore.Stand-alone proposal that reduces or increases incentives for corporations to shift profits offshore, depending on the rate.Stand-alone proposal that increases incentives for corporations to shift profits offshore.



Example: President Obama has proposed a 14 percent transition tax, with revenue going to infrastructure investment. No congressional proposals to date.Example: Senators Paul and Boxer proposed in 2015 a five-year repatriation holiday with stated goal of replenishing Highway Trust Fund.
 

Transition Tax

Any corporate tax reform that alters the tax treatment of future overseas profits will likely include a one-time transition tax on existing foreign profits as part of the shift to the new tax system.  A transition tax or “toll charge” would clean the slate of existing tax liabilities. 

Such a tax would be mandatory:

multinationals would have to pay U.S. taxes on existing foreign profits whether they repatriate them or not.  To achieve this, transition taxes would deem all foreign profits to have been repatriated and thus subject to the transition tax rate.  (Most proposals would allow the companies to pay the tax over a period of years.)  Future overseas profits would then be taxed under the new rules agreed to as part of tax reform.  


A transition tax would raise one-time revenues that could help fund infrastructure investments or reduce deficits.  For example, the President’s budget proposes a compulsory 14 percent transition tax on existing offshore profits, which would raise $299 billion to fund infrastructure investments, as part of transitioning to a new international tax system.


Former Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp also included a transition tax in his 2014 tax reform proposal, at a maximum rate of 8.75 percent on most foreign profits.  Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also proposed in 2015 a framework for international tax reform and endorsed the broad transition tax approach in President Obama and Chairman Camp’s frameworks.



Since transition tax revenues would be one-time in nature, they could not help pay for permanent corporate rate cuts on an ongoing basis (or provide permanent infrastructure funding either).  For example, as noted above the President’s 14 percent transition tax proposal raises $299 billion. 

As the President’s Framework for Business Tax Reform notes, if those revenues were coupled with corporate rate cuts:


[…A] package that appears revenue-neutral in the first ten years would lose roughly $380 billion in the second decade, and even more thereafter.  For this reason, the one-time revenues raised by business tax reform should be matched with one-time investments or deficit reduction, as the President’s Framework proposed.


Repatriation Tax Holiday

A repatriation tax holiday is designed to encourage multinationals to return overseas profits to the United States by offering them a temporary, sharply reduced U.S. tax rate on those profits.  It gives participating multinationals very large tax breaks (especially those that have aggressively shifted profits offshore) and increases deficits over the long term, as explained below.  Because it loses revenues, it cannot be used to fund infrastructure investments or anything else. 


The repatriation tax holiday enacted in 2004 failed to produce any of the promised economic benefits, such as boosting jobs or domestic investment, according to a wide range of independent studies by economists associated with the National Bureau for Economic Research, the Congressional Research Service, the Treasury Department, and other analysts.


Enacting a second repatriation tax holiday would boost revenues during the holiday period as companies rushed to take advantage of the temporary low rate, but would bleed revenues thereafter.  A two-year holiday at a tax rate of 5.74 percent would lose $96 billion over 11 years, JCT estimated in 2014 (see Figure 2).  As JCT explained, the biggest reason for the revenue loss over time is that a second holiday would encourage companies to shift more profits and investments overseas in anticipation of more tax holidays, thus avoiding taxes in the meantime.

Because a repatriation tax holiday loses revenue, claims that it can pay for infrastructure are mistaken.  Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) proposed in 2015 a repatriation tax holiday at a 6.5 percent rate that they claimed could help finance infrastructure investment.  But JCT estimates that their proposal would lose $118 billion over ten years, so it couldn’t finance infrastructure spending.


Key Differences Between a Transition Tax and a Repatriation Holiday


1. A transition tax is compulsory and raises revenues; a repatriation tax holiday is optional and loses revenues.  



As noted, the President’s proposed transition tax would raise $299 billion over 2016-2025.  Because the revenues stop flowing in after the transition period, it makes sense to use them for one-time infrastructure investments, as the President proposes.  A repatriation holiday, in contrast, reduces revenues over time.





2. A transition tax is part of corporate tax reform that can be designed to reduce or eliminate incentives to shift profits and investments offshore; a repatriation tax holiday increases those incentives. 


A transition tax would be coupled with corporate tax reforms that could be designed to reduce or eliminate the incentive for companies to shift profits offshore.  The President, for example, has proposed a 19 percent minimum tax on future offshore profits, so multinationals could no longer defer tax on their foreign profits until choosing to repatriate them.  By contrast, a repatriation tax holiday is a stand-alone tax cut that lacks such reforms; it would strongly encourage firms to shift profits and investment offshore in subsequent years in anticipation of another tax holiday. 





3. A transition tax could bring other benefits as part of corporate tax reform. 


Unlike a repatriation tax holiday, which has been shown to provide none of the promised economic benefits, a transition tax could yield economic benefits if used for one-time investments, such as infrastructure, or to reduce the deficit. 



The most fiscally responsible approach would be for corporate tax reform to reduce deficits.  But even a reform package that is revenue neutral should meet the revenue-neutrality standard over the long run as well as in the initial ten-year budget window.  Otherwise, policymakers could use timing gimmicks to craft a corporate tax reform package that is revenue neutral over the first ten years but swells deficits and debt after that.



Stand-alone Deemed Repatriation


A “stand-alone deemed repatriation” is in many ways a hybrid between a repatriation holiday and a transition tax.  Like a transition tax, it would be compulsory and deem overseas profits to have been repatriated and subject to U.S. tax.  Unlike a transition tax, it would be a stand-alone measure not coupled with a permanent reform to the international tax system.  How a stand-alone deemed repatriation would impact revenues and tax avoidance would depend on the rate.

• If the deemed repatriation rate is set low, it would work more like a repatriation tax holiday.  Imagine if a deemed repatriation rate were set at the 5.25 percent rate offered under the 2004 repatriation tax holiday.  Even though companies would be required to treat all their offshore profits as having been repatriated and subject to the tax, because the rate is so low, they would likely choose to repatriate most of their profits even if the tax were instead structured as a voluntary “holiday.”
• Like a repatriation tax holiday, a deemed repatriation would generate one-time revenues.  But revenues would be lost on some of the profits repatriated at the low 5.25 percent rate that would have otherwise been repatriated over time at the normal 35 percent statutory rate.  A deemed repatriation at a low rate would also encourage multinationals to expect that future deemed repatriations or tax holidays will be set at a similarly low rate.  Thus, also like a repatriation tax holiday, a deemed repatriation at a low rate would encourage multinationals to shift more profits offshore in the future (because it would make them more confident that any eventual U.S. tax on those profits would be far lower than 35 percent).  This would further bleed future revenues.

 

• If the deemed repatriation rate is set high (close to the 35 percent statutory rate), it would work more like a transition tax.  For example, consider a deemed repatriation rate at or very near to the 35 percent statutory rate.  The higher rate would generate more initial revenues from the deemed repatriation.  In addition, to the extent that some of the profits deemed to have been repatriated would have been repatriated voluntarily over time at the usual 35 percent rate, the loss of revenue on those future repatriations would be smaller.  Finally, the higher rate might alter multinationals’ expectations about the rate that they will eventually face on any future offshore profits — it could reduce their expectations that policymakers will offer them future tax holidays or deemed repatriations at much lower tax rates.  That might therefore even reduce their incentive to shift profits offshore, and bolster future revenues.

 

• If the deemed repatriation rate is set between these two extremes, it is difficult to predict precisely how multinationals would respond.  Any “deemed repatriation” rate should be set as close to the 35 percent statutory rate as possible — at least high enough to avoid giving multinationals even more reason to shift future profits overseas.  Otherwise, it would effectively act like a repatriation tax holiday, and would worsen tax avoidance and lose revenues in later years.  As with a transition tax, any one-time revenues from a “stand-alone” deemed repatriation should be dedicated to one-off investments or deficit reduction, and not paired with proposals that have lasting costs.

We are not aware of any congressional proposals for a deemed repatriation, though commentators and policymakers have discussed the option.

______________________________________________

We will spend the next few days discussing what that last article posted means in policy regarding CORPORATE TAX REPATRIATION----but please know that all these tax policies whether written from far-right wing Bush neo-cons or far-right wing Clinton neo-liberals hide REAL goals of TAXATION OF FOREIGN EARNINGS originally written a century ago.  They are totally rewriting all of what last century's goals of corporate taxation and monopoly laws are supposed to be.

'Transition Tax

A transition tax would raise one-time revenues that could help fund infrastructure investments or reduce deficits'. 

'Repatriation Tax Holiday

A repatriation tax holiday is designed to encourage multinationals to return overseas profits to the United States by offering them a temporary, sharply reduced U.S. tax rate on those profits'.


The first thing we see in these terms is ----none of them are tied to strictly clawing back overseas corporate tax earnings as written by TAXATION ON FOREIGN EARNINGS.  These overseas corporate taxes were never about TRANSITIONING GLOBAL CORPORATIONS back to US cities-------they were never about REPATRIATING those taxes at discount rates.  Where the Center for Budget and Policies Clinton neo-liberal think tank does indeed describe what global banking 1% are telling 99% WE THE PEOPLE what they want-----it completely ignores US CORPORATE TAXATION law as existed for 100 years.

What the corporate tax on foreign income did these 100 years is allow global corporations to deduct from total 35% tax rate tied to corporate tax the amount of taxes those global corporations had to pay to overseas nations to which they moved.  So, we do not get the total 35% income tax on all profits overseas.

KNOW WHAT FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES OVERSEAS HAVE HAD AS CORPORATE TAX LAW THESE SEVERAL DECADES?  TAX FREE ZONES FOR CORPORATIONS INSIDE THESE ZONES.

So, did these US global corporations pay any taxes to overseas nations on income?  WE THINK NOT.  As in US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----we see tons of TAX SUBSIDY.

Aug. 15 – Foreign investors wishing to take advantage of development zones for export-related manufacturing and assembly, and obtaining tax incentives when doing so, may consider establishing a presence in one of India’s special economic zones (SEZs).



How the United States Taxes Foreign-Source Income



The federal government taxes US resident multinational firms on their worldwide income at the same rates applied to domestic firms; the current maximum tax rate—the rate that applies to most corporate income—is 35 percent. US multinationals may claim a credit for taxes paid to foreign governments on income earned abroad, but only up to their US tax liability on that income. Firms may, however, take advantage of cross-crediting, using excess credits from income earned in high-tax countries to offset US tax due on income earned in low-tax countries.


US multinationals generally pay tax on the income of their foreign subsidiaries only when they repatriate the income, a delay of taxation termed “deferral.” Deferral, the credit limitation, and cross-crediting all provide strong incentives for firms to shift income from the United States and other high-tax countries to low-tax countries.



Suppose, for example, a US-based multinational firm facing the 35 percent maximum corporate income tax rate earns $800 in profits in its Irish subsidiary (figure 1). The 12.5 percent Irish corporate tax reduces the after-tax profit to $700. Suppose the firm then repatriates $70 of this profit and reinvests the remaining $630 in its Irish operations. The firm must then pay US tax on a base of $80 (the $70 plus the $10 in Irish tax paid on that portion of its profits), or $28, but it claims a credit for the $10 Irish tax, leaving a net US tax of $18. If the firm has excess foreign tax credits from operations in high-tax countries, it can offset more (or possibly all) of the US tax due on its repatriated Irish profit. Meanwhile, deferral allows the remaining profit ($630) to grow abroad, free of US income tax until it is repatriated.

_________________________________________
Let's be clear-----first, we do not believe in the least that all those US corporations moving overseas these few decades regardless of Bush era repatriation accumulated only a few trillion dollars in CORPORATE TAX ON FOREIGN INCOME.  The soaring product manufacturing around global technology corporations and infrastructure being built for ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID brought tens of trillions of dollars in profits  to those global corporations.


'The overseas cash stash for U.S. companies continues to swell, with only scant hope of it being brought back home as Washington continues to debate repatriation'.

99% WE THE PEOPLE will be better to forget repatriation of these few trillion they say are owed just to keep these multi-national corporations out of our US cities.  We do want to acknowledge as REAL DATA that $2 trillion in owed foreign earnings is BOGUS.

Just this ONE US corporation going global brings in US earnings of several billion each year-----the expansion overseas was HUGE------when US citizens allow these US corporations go overseas thinking we will have ANY OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY whether in actual EARNINGS DATA or STOCK DATA -----we need to WAKE UP.  Nothing reported as costs and earnings is REAL DATA from overseas.  So, we have never been able to track real foreign earnings for corporate taxation before empire-building exploded----we certainly have no control over that data today.

THE $2 TRILLION IN CORPORATE EARNINGS HELD OFFSHORE FOR REPATRIATION HAS NO BASIS IN FACTUAL EARNING DATA.

US citizens cannot even get REAL DATA from our own US local, state, and Federal government because of systemic frauds and corruption so do people really think these data from overseas foreign earning would EVER BE FACTUAL?

We do not want this system of foreign earning taxation PERIOD.


Feb 8, 2008 @ 05:30 PM 1,321 


McDonald's Golden In International Markets

By Lisa LaMotta FORBES

Where's the beef? From McDonald's point of view, it's outside of the U.S. On Friday the Oak Brook, Ill.-based fast-food purveyor joined the growing chorus of multinationals benefiting from geographic diversity.
The company's shares closed up 2.2%, or $1.18, to $55.64 on Friday after the company announced strong international sales in January.


McDonald's said sales were up 5.7% globally in restaurants that had been open at least 13 months. That broke down to a 1.9% increase in same-store sales in the U.S. in January from a flat December, compared with sales in Europe that were up 8.2%. The Golden Arches also saw increased traffic in its Asia/Pacific, Middle East and Africa stores, with sales up 7.8%.


"It's not that there is something wrong with the U.S. numbers, it's just a product of the environment," said Bear Stearns analyst Joseph Buckley. "The key will be if the European economy slows and if that will impact their sales. There has been no evidence of that so far, but that becomes a bigger risk going forward."


The international numbers trump comparable sales growth for the corresponding period in 2007 when European sales were only up by 5.8% and Asia/Pacific, Middle East and Africa units were up 4.3%.


"The U.K., Europe’s second-largest market, and formerly a drag to the region, has officially 'turned around' according to McDonald's," said JPMorgan Chase analyst Joseph Ivankoe. "By the end of fiscal-year 2008 we expect 30% of [the] U.K. system and the entire German system to have been re-imaged, providing a lift to [comparable sales] at re-imaged stores and a positive halo effect for the entire market."
McDonald's is in line with the current trend of foreign markets boosting sales for multinational U.S. companies that are suffering domestically, with overseas sales benefiting from strong currencies and better economic growth than seen in the domestic market..


Shares of Tiffany & Co. , for example, rose on Friday to $40.20, up 5.1%, or $1.93, in midday trading after it offered solid 2008 guidance on the back of strong international sales. The company is scheduled to report earnings for its fourth quarter and annual 2007 results on March 24. (See "Tiffany's Sparkling International Rise")


Whirlpool also experienced a boom overseas. The appliance manufacturer announced earlier this week that fourth-quarter profit soared 71.6%, to $187 million, or $2.38 per share. Whirlpool North America sales slipped less than 1%, to $3.0 billion, while European sales jumped 12% to $1.1 billion. (See: "Whirlpool's International Fever" )


In late January, American manufacturers Honeywell International and Caterpillar both announced double-digit earnings in the fourth quarter due to strong international results, up 12.1% and 10.0% respectively.

______________________________________
We discuss the fact that US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES will be FOREIGN GLOBAL CORPORATIONS coming to US-----with that comes the TRUMP MADE IN AMERICA becoming MADE IN CHINA NOW MADE IN AMERICA.

The policy of taxing US corporations operating overseas with CORPORATE TAX IN FOREIGN EARNINGS 100 years ago came with those few US corporations expanding overseas still having a large presence in US economy.  So, STANDARD OIL et al may have gone overseas to earn money but they still had plenty of corporate activity in US....from gas stations, oil and gas refineries, drilling and transportation all across the US.  So, the bulk of their corporate income was inside the US -----today, it is the opposite and MOVING FORWARD it will be totally absent as the last of US corporations are pushed into bankruptcy from this massive corporate and US Treasury bond fraud. 

What we have coming to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES are foreign global corporations which would not pay taxes inside those US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.  MADE IN CHINA IN AMERICA must export global factory or services and US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES are a duty-free zone.

If we look at TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT AND UNITED NATIONS for which CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA NOW TRUMP work------we discussed the tax term VAT ------and China is VAT HAPPY.

VAT WILL BE THE ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE TAX POLICY AND IT IS WRITTEN SO THAT GLOBAL CORPORATIONS AS SOURCE OF PRODUCTS PAY NO TAXES.

This REPATRIATION TAX ISSUE IS PROPAGANDA.

'Later this year along the banks of the James River outside Richmond, Virginia, a paper products maker based in northeastern China will begin construction on a new U.S. manufacturing plant. The factory will churn the region's straw and corn stalks into household products including napkins, tissue and organic fertilizer—all marked "Made in the USA."'

The only corporate presence in US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES of corporations that used to be American ---will be the global headquarter's campus as in Baltimore's UNDERARMOUR------it is a business resort for global 1% and their 2% traveling ----it will not have any American business presence. NO US CORPORATIONS TO TAX IN MOVING FORWARD.


Below we see TRUMP'S MADE IN AMERICA MOVING FORWARD.

Business
Feb 8 2015, 6:24 am ET


‘Made in China’ Is Increasingly Becoming ‘Made in USA’


by CNBC.com

Chinese foreign direct investment in the U.S. totaled $12 billion last year, topping $10 billion for the second year in a row. JEWEL SAMAD / AFP/Getty Images



Later this year along the banks of the James River outside Richmond, Virginia, a paper products maker based in northeastern China will begin construction on a new U.S. manufacturing plant. The factory will churn the region's straw and corn stalks into household products including napkins, tissue and organic fertilizer—all marked "Made in the USA."



Shandong Tranlin Paper's new U.S. factory is forecast to generate about 2,000 new jobs by 2020, and is the latest Chinese company to invest in American manufacturing.




Chinese foreign direct investment in the U.S. totaled $12 billion last year, topping $10 billion for the second year in a row, according to the Rhodium Group, which tracks Chinese money flows into the U.S. It was three years ago in 2012, when—for the first time ever—Chinese foreign investment in America lapped investment flows in the other direction to China.


Asian investment in America is nothing new. Japanese companies led the way in the 1980s, partly to evade tariffs. Avoiding international taxes on goods again is partly why Chinese businesses are coming to America. But Chinese investment in the U.S. is striking and different in other ways—and already altering pockets of domestic manufacturing.


Chinese investment in America largely has been tied to mergers and acquisitions. Chinese meat producer Shuanghui Group bought Smithfield Foods for roughly $4.72 billion. But some Chinese companies are taking another tack and building manufacturing plants—from the ground up—on U.S. soil. They're spending hundreds of millions on new projects and expansions of existing U.S. subsidiaries combined have jumped to five to nine annually, from virtually none a few years ago, according to Rhodium's research.


China moving up the food chain


Beyond tariff jumping, the larger question remains why?


Known more for low-cost manufacturing and massive shipping containers of cheap toys and textiles, China wants to move up the food chain. China's gross domestic product for 2014 grew 7.4 percent—the weakest performance in 24 years. As the nation's economy slows, China wants to push into higher-valued products including pricey construction machinery. But production and sales of higher-margin goods require advanced tech skills and innovation, sometimes more easily achieved outside China, where low-cost production reigns.



And in an ironic twist on offshored American jobs, some Chinese companies are pursuing "Made in USA" branding. "Foreign brands and quality control are increasingly important for China's affluent middle class," according to Rhodium's research.



"Foreign brands and quality control are increasingly important for China's affluent middle class."


But for all the manufacturing bounty generated by foreign investments, some China watchers are cautious. The new manufacturing plants have stoked old fears about foreign investment. Are Chinese businesses planting stakes in the U.S. to simply hoard know-how, and eventually wipe out domestic competition?



"Some foreign direct investment is being done in a strategic way by the Chinese government to pick up high value-added parts," said Stephen Ezell, senior analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation in Washington.


"In the background, this has become of increasing concern," Ezell said.


China's middle class to surpass US population: CEO 0:49Roy Dahlquist, an economic development leader in Virginia, has traveled to China and back for 30 years and counting.


He's had China on his brain long before Americans began buying shares of e-commerce platform Alibaba, or started downloading the microblogging app WeChat on their smartphones.


For some 16 years, the Virginia Economic Development Partnership has operated an office in China, and eventually relocated to Shanghai in 2011. Meanwhile, a now senior executive at the Tranlin paper company—based in the Shandong province of China—earned an MBA from the University of Virginia Darden School of Business in 2003.



The future executive took note of the region's easy access to Interstate 95, Washington Dulles International Airport and the Chesapeake Bay. The Virginia port's shipping channels are deep, and can accommodate some of the world's largest container ships. These are all desired qualities for foreign-based businesses looking to open shop in America.

Years later, Tranlin executives wanted to expand with a new U.S. paper and fertilizer plant. They initially focused on California, when the Virginia team pitched Chesterfield County's infrastructure, and local talent pool that spans agriculture and the military. Naval Station Norfolk is the largest naval complex in the world. But the number of federal government-funded jobs has diminished over the years.


It was in June of last year that Shandong Tranlin announced it would invest about $2 billion over five years to build an 850-acre campus outside Richmond in Chesterfield County. About 23 Chinese-owned businesses already operate in Virginia, representing $9.51 billion in capital investment, including mergers and acquisitions, and more than 4,300 jobs.


"Virginia was in a position, where we historically depended on the federal government, military, defense for a lot jobs," said Dahlquist, managing director of the Asia region for the Virginia Economic Development Partnership. "In our new economy, we can't do that."

China's economic transformation: Cramer 2:26

Boosting Chinese foreign investment

The Tranlin project in Virginia and other planned, new manufacturing facilities will boost Chinese foreign direct investment in the U.S. into the new year. "The outlook for 2015 remains very strong, with more than $3 billion in deals currently pending," according to an update from Rhodium published in January. And with U.S. crude oil prices hovering under $50 a barrel—half the cost a year ago—private buyers could drive China-U.S. energy deals in coming months, according to Rhodium.



Other Chinese companies behind new U.S. manufacturing plants include:

• The Keer Group's $218 million cotton yarn factory in South Carolina.
• SANY's $60 million investment in office and manufacturing space for construction machinery in Georgia.
• Lenovo's computer production plant in North Carolina for an undisclosed investment amount. Many of the new manufacturing projects have a strong green component.

If Japanese companies in the '80s brought with them lean manufacturing practices, Chinese companies are pursuing advanced manufacturing that takes advantage of product and work flow innovations.


The Tranlin paper project, for example, will take advantage of the region's small grain producers. Straw and corn stalks—agricultural residuals that would have been tossed—and other fibrous materials will be transformed into household paper products.



Beyond the promise of advanced manufacturing, more Chinese companies are coming to America as they face higher costs in China for land and labor, along with tariffs and other trade barriers. Chinese firms in metals manufacturing, for example, localized production in the States after the U.S. imposed anti-dumping and other duties on various metal products, according to Rhodium. Related manufacturing projects include:

• Tianjin Pipe's $1 billion investment in a steel pipe plant in Texas.
• Nanshan Group unit's $100 million aluminum plant in Indiana.
• Golden Dragon's $100 million precision copper tubing plant in Alabama.

"The net result is a trade relationship that clearly produces jobs for Chinese workers but costs jobs for blue collar Americans even as U.S. exports to China grow."


Welcome citizens?

But while the list of new Chinese-funded U.S. plants is growing, it's hardly a manufacturing boom. Chinese manufacturing foreign direct investment in the U.S. is small, and Chinese companies account for a tiny fraction of American jobs—less than 100,000 across all sectors of the U.S. economy, according to Thilo Hanemann, research director with the Rhodium Group. Some research, in fact, suggests a decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, and America's bilateral trade with China increased. Although China has become America's third-largest export, Chinese goods still far outpace U.S. goods to China.


In the manufacturing sector, the bulk of U.S. sales to China involves commodities, while the vast majority of Chinese sales to the U.S. is manufactured, finished goods. "The net result is a trade relationship that clearly produces jobs for Chinese workers but costs jobs for blue collar Americans even as U.S. exports to China grow," according to a 2014 U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission report to Congress.


But other China watchers say talk of a Chinese investment threat is exaggerated, and that America benefits from Chinese investment. Ask Dahlquist of Virginia.

"We need manufacturing jobs," Dahlquist said. "We need a fresh approach that's less dependent on the federal government."
______________________________________


When China steadily installs VAT as its tax system it is MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE TAX---THE VAT.  China places this VAT on all exports manufactured and in US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES that is what Chinese global corporate campuses will be doing----manufacturing products and services to EXPORT.  So, while Trump PRETENDS he is against Trans Pacific Trade Pact-----while he PRETENDS his MADE IN AMERICA is about bringing jobs to AMERICAN WORKERS----while he is PRETENDING to be reforming US corporate tax code ------he is MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE VAT TAX as US cities fill with foreign global corporations already having VAT.

Where China is tops in coming to US we will see US CITIES flood with foreign corporations from around the world with not a US corporation in site.

THIS REPATRIATION CORPORATE TAX POLICY IS PROPAGANDA.  WHAT GLOBAL BANKING 1% POLS ARE DOING IS USING OUR $20 TRILLION US AND STATE MUNICIPAL BOND FRAUD REVENUE TO BUILD THESE INFRASTRUCTURES.


'China, along with about 160 other countries including Euro Zone members, has a VAT. The United States does not'.

Now, we discussed early 1900 corporate tax and monopoly policy and this discussion also includes TARIFF policy which brought shouts from US citizens of being bad for our US businesses so too is MOVING FORWARD TARIFF POLICY



Trump miscasts impact on trade of Chinese taxes

By Jon Greenberg on Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 4:39 p.m.



Trade analysts worry that Donald Trump's trade plans would cost American jobs.Donald Trump loves to tell voters he’s all about getting a better deal for America. It’s a theme he invokes repeatedly when it comes to trade.


In a recent interview with two New York Times reporters, Trump called for a different mind set.


"I do know my subject, and I do know that our country cannot continue to do what it’s doing," Trump said. "It’s very hard for us to do business in China, it’s very easy for China to do business with us. Plus with us, there’s a tremendous tax that we pay when we go into China, whereas when China sells to us, there’s no tax. I mean, it’s a whole double standard."


We wondered, is there a hefty tax when American firms sell in China, while there’s no tax that Chinese firms face when they sell here?


We asked the Trump campaign for background information on this and didn’t hear back.


The trade experts we reached told us there two possible ways to interpret what Trump means by a "tax that we pay when we go into China." He might have meant China’s value-added tax, or VAT, or he might have meant China’s import tariffs. We’ll explore both.
Value Added Tax

This tax is collected at each stage in the production or distribution of a product or service, but with a refund mechanism for VAT paid on purchased units so the final burden falls on the final buyer or consumer. So for example, when a clothing wholesaler sells some shirts to a retailer, the tax is booked on the wholesaler’s mark-up. When the retailer sells the shirt to a customer, the tax is booked again. But the retailer gets a credit back for the tax paid by the wholesaler.


China, along with about 160 other countries including Euro Zone members, has a VAT. The United States does not.


China’s basic VAT is 17 percent, but some items, such as agricultural products, are not taxed at all, and some products face a lower rate of 13 percent.
So in terms of a VAT, Trump has a point. But it isn’t one that has to do with a tax that uniquely raises the price of American goods and services sold in China. By and large, the VAT applies to all sales, regardless of where the product was made. It raises the costs for everybody.


"VAT or not doesn’t make much difference," said John Graham, a professor of international business at the UC Irvine Paul Merage School of Business.
An analysis of challenges in U.S.-China trade relations by the Congressional Research Service, the policy think tank of Congress, makes no mention of China’s value-added tax.


The Office of U.S. Trade Representative’s 2015 report on China does mention China’s VAT, but only in the way the government used VAT rebates to reduce costs for Chinese exporters.


"These practices have caused tremendous disruption, uncertainty, and unfairness in the global markets for some products," the report says, especially for products where China is a leading world producer, such as steel, aluminum and soda ash.


While that allows Chinese manufacturers to sell more cheaply overseas, it doesn’t make it more expensive for any foreign company to compete for sales in China.
For the record, it is worth putting China’s VAT into context. With one exception, countries in the European Union charge a higher rate. Luxembourg’s is the same as China’s, but Germany’s is 19 percent, France’s is 20 percent and Italy’s is 22 percent.



Tariffs
Tariffs are essentially a tax on imports. On this front, China imposes higher rates than does the United States.
Here’s how it breaks down, according to the World Trade Organization:


Agricultural Products
Non-Agricultural Products

US tariffs on Chinese goods sold in the United States
2.5%
2.9%

Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods sold in China
9.7%
5.0%


There are different ways to summarize tariffs. The table above is adjusted for the volume of trade of different goods in each broad category, but regardless of how you cut it, China has higher tariffs than the United States.


However, Trump said Chinese goods faced no tax in the United States. That’s inaccurate. For agricultural goods, the tax is 2.5 percent. For non-agricultural goods, it is 2.9 percent.


"If Trump was referring to tariffs, which are a kind of tax, then it is clearly incorrect that Chinese products come into the U.S. tariff-free," said Joel Trachtman, a trade law specialist at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.


It’s also worth noting that as a member of the World Trade Organization, China treats all importers the same, except if it has a separate free-trade deal. So, all things being equal, every WTO trading partner pays the same import tariff as the United States. China does have a number of free-trade treaties with many Asian countries, plus ones with Australia, Chile and others.
Julia Ya Qin, professor of law at Wayne State University, told us that it’s not unusual for the United States to have lower rates than China.


"Industrialized countries generally have lower tariffs than developing countries," Qin said. "Hence, countries such as India, Turkey, Argentina have much higher average tariffs than the United States, the EU, Canada, Japan on industrial products. China is somewhere in between the two groups."
Overall, while the United States and others have had trade disputes with China, they don’t hinge on tariffs or taxes.


"Generally, they are not major problems even in most cases worldwide," said Stuart Malawer, professor of law and international trade at George Mason University. Malawer served on the Virginia governor’s trade mission to China. "The real problem are non-tariff barriers. China has a significant number of them. These are primarily regulatory."


A leading example on the regulatory side has to do with beef. In 2014, China used food safety rules to block beef imports.


Malawer reviewed the history of trade disputes between the United States and China and told us that tariffs and taxes "are not an issue between the U.S. and China."

Our ruling

Trump said "there’s a tremendous tax that we pay when we go into China, whereas when China sells to us, there’s no tax." If Trump was thinking of China’s value-added tax, he has something of a point. China has a basic VAT of 17 percent, while the United States has none. However, the VAT applies to most goods sold in China, regardless of where they are made. And the VAT affects domestic producers the same as foreign ones.


If Trump was thinking of import tariffs, he has a different problem. Yes, China’s tariffs are higher than those imposed by the United States, but the Chinese exporters do face a tax when they sell in this country. So in terms of tariffs, Trump is wrong.


No expert or report we found from impartial sources suggested that taxes of any sort presented a challenge to American firms that sell in China. There are problems, but they stem from other things China does.


Whatever tax or tariff Trump had in mind, he either exaggerated the impact on trade or got the U.S. rate wrong. We rate this claim Mostly False.

___________________________________________

We KNOW TRUMP is MOVING FORWARD Trans Pacific Trade Pact even as he PRETENDS not.....we KNOW his MADE IN AMERICA is MADE IN CHINA IN AMERICA....and we KNOW Trump will install VAT as a ONE WORLD ONE VAT TAX. So, REPATRIATION TAX policy is propaganda pretending our US corporations are still American when they are NOT.


While our regional and small businesses think all these tariffs are good or bad----they are not seeing the goals of MOVING FORWARD being-----there will be no US businesses manufacturing products to worry over TARIFF POLICIES.

So, the US losses both corporate taxation -----taxes on rich------AND tariffs that brought Federal tax revenue from foreign disappearing will meet VAT which is hyper-regressive and repressive on 99% US WE THE PEOPLE and 99% global citizens.

We love our 99% of global labor pool workers -------black, brown and white citizens----we are not fighting the presence of Asian 99% as immigrants wanting to start businesses----we are fighting this foreign corporation inside our US sovereign cities.  Our 99% of global citizens coming to US need to know these CORPORATE TAX POLICIES being installed in Foreign Economic Zones overseas are the OPPOSITE of our US strong corporate taxation and monopoly laws from FDR through last century.


An Overview of China’s VAT Reform

Posted on December 30, 2016 by China Briefing

By Dezan Shira & Associates
Editor: Alexander Chipman Koty

Hailed as China’s most significant tax reform in over two decades, the value-added tax (VAT) was comprehensively implemented as the country’s only indirect tax in 2016, effectively replacing the business tax (BT) that previously applied to a number of industries. The reform is part of Beijing’s efforts to restructure the Chinese economy from one driven by labor-intensive manufacturing to one that is service-oriented by easing the tax burden on service industries, which have historically paid a disproportionate share.


In 2015, services made up more than half of China’s GDP for the first time, and are growing at a faster rate than any other sector of the economy. The Chinese government envisions the VAT reform to further propel growth in services and consumption as the country pivots away from the low value-added industries. The broader introduction of the VAT is also designed to encourage low-end manufacturers to upgrade their technology and capabilities, and to invest in research and development in order to move up the value chain.


China has had a VAT system in place since the country’s bold reforms and opening up to the world economy in 1979. The tax system underwent a major overhaul in 1994, as the VAT was expanded to include the sale of goods, processing, and repair services, while directing more revenue to the central government. The expansion of the VAT is expected to reduce tax payments by a total of RMB 500 billion (US$77 billion) in 2016, largely at the expense of local governments.


These Chinese VAT policies let us know what was once US corporations were not paying any foreign national taxes as global manufacturing and services corporations.


TPP to cost U.S. billions in lost tariffs

By ADAM BEHSUDI
01/20/2016 10:00 AM EST POLITICO


With help from Doug Palmer, Victoria Guida and Darren Goode

TPP TO COST U.S. BILLIONS IN LOST TARIFFS:

The approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement could cost the United States more than $15 billion in lost tariff revenue over the first 10 years of the pact, experts say, potentially leading to new fees on businesses or spending cuts to cover the tab, reports Pro Trade’s Doug Palmer this morning.

About two-thirds of the 6,000-plus pages in the TPP agreement consist of tariff elimination schedules, John Murphy, a senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, noted last week at an International Trade Commission hearing on the economic impact of the pact. “This translates into about 18,000 tax cuts on U.S. goods sold abroad and 6,000 tax cuts on goods imported into United States from other TPP nations,” he said. Pros can read the rest of Palmer’s article here: http://politico.pro/1UaYXI3



CUSTOMS BILL ON THE HORIZON:


The long-awaited customs bill could move in the Senate as early as next week despite continued opposition to an unrelated internet access tax provision, a Senate aide tells Pro Trade.


Sen. Dick Durbin continues to lead efforts to strip a permanent ban on the internet access tax from the House-passed conference report associated with H.R. 644, arguing the issue should not be addressed without also considering separate legislation to allow states to collect sales taxes on online purchases. The Illinois Democrat seems poised to raise a point of order on the issue, which would have to be overcome by a vote of 60, the same number required to reach cloture.


No problem, say bill proponents. As long as Republicans can get 10 or 11 Democrats to join them, they’ll have enough votes to overcome Durbin’s attempts to spike the legislation, they believe. And Democratic supporters of the bill say, as of Friday, they can now deliver 13 members of their party.


TURNBULL: CHINA MARKET WOES A GOOD SIGN:


Troubles in the Chinese market are actually a positive sign that Beijing is adjusting to its economy, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Tuesday. “China is going through an economic transition. It has had an economy that has been driven for many years now by — deliberately by government [intervention]. It’s been driven by investment, and by exports,” he said. “It’s clearly been unsustainable.”


“This rebalancing has to happen,” he added. “It is an overwhelmingly good thing,” he said, though he noted the negative effects on the prices for certainty commodities like iron or coal. “As more of the GDP of China, more of China’s wealth finds its way into Chinese households, they will become ... much greater consumers,” he said.


In the same speech, Turnbull said he would tell U.S. lawmakers, during his visit to Washington, to focus on the larger economic and strategic benefits of TPP, rather than only on the details.


“When I'm speaking to some of your legislators later in the day, I'll be encouraging them to support the TPP, to not lose sight of the wood for the trees, not to get lost in this detail or that detail,” Turnbull said. “Because the big picture is the rules-based international order, which America has underwritten for generations. ... TPP is a key element of that.”


U.S.-CHINA INVESTMENT PACT TOPS GROUP’S 2016 WISH LIST:

The U.S.-China Business Council is urging the U.S. and Chinese governments to finish work on a bilateral investment treaty this year. “A BIT provides one of the best opportunities to reduce investment barriers in both countries, ensure a level playing field among all enterprises, and improve protections for U.S. and Chinese investors in each other’s markets,” the group said in its annual priority statement.


In a controversial area for the United States, the USCBC pressed the Obama administration to designate China as a “market economy” under U.S. trade remedy law by December. That is strongly opposed by the steel industry, which believes the change could result in significantly lower anti-dumping duties in trade cases brought against China.


USCBC President John Frisbie told reporters he believed it could create “a big problem” in bilateral relations if the United States doesn’t provide the market economy status that Beijing believes it is guaranteed to get this year under the terms of its entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001. He said arguments that China isn’t really entitled to the upgrade this year “are pretty thinly supported, at best.” To read more, click here: http://bit.ly/1Jgx6FX


SENATE LOOKS TO REV UP ENERGY DEBATE:

The Senate could begin debating this week a new energy policy package that includes provisions for expediting liquefied natural gas exports. The 424-page plan from Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski and ranking member Maria Cantwell would also modernize infrastructure and expand energy efficiency.


But don’t expect the energy measure to get much attention unless the the upper chamber fails to take up a Republican bill aimed at limiting the entry of Syrian refugees into the U.S. Republicans needed 60 votes Wednesday afternoon to start debating a House-passed Syrian refugee bill that Democrats largely opposed and the White House has threatened to veto. If the vote on the procedural move to take up that bill fails, a senior Senate Democratic aide said, the energy bill could then be called up.


WAYS AND MEANS REPUBLICANS POLICY RETREAT:

Look for more clarity soon from the House Ways and Means Committee on its path forward with the TPP. The panel’s Republicans are scheduled to hold a policy retreat next Monday, a committee spokeswoman confirms. Plus, Chairman Kevin Brady indicated last week that the committee could hold a hearing on TPP next month but that would be laid out in more detail after the retreat.


Trade also is likely to come up when Ways and Means holds its first hearing of the year on Jan. 26, the spokeswoman said. The hearing is titled, “Reaching America’s potential: delivering growth and opportunity for all Americans.” More information here: http://1.usa.gov/1SuTPRq


AUTO PARTS ASSOCIATION ENDORSES TPP:

The Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association, which represents more than 1,000 auto supply companies, is urging Congress to ratify the deal but say they’re concerned it might not provide long-term protection for small, regional U.S. suppliers. The group is calling on the administration and Congress to protect and provide additional resources to small companies in three ways:


First, MEMA demands that the agreement’s rules of origin are actively monitored for compliance and that feedback is solicited regularly from the industry. Second, MEMA urges improvements to the Federal Research and Development Tax Credit by optimizing its benefits. Finally, the association wants the administration to improve vehicle technologies research and development at the Department of Energy by adopting changes to the existing program outlined in the Vehicle Innovation Act. Read the full statement here: http://politico.pro/1nwG7AG


ANALYST: SIDE DEALS COULD PAVE WAY FOR QUICK TPP VOTE:

Congressional approval of the TPP could happen quickly in the second quarter of 2016 if the White House can work out deals with congressional leaders on problem areas like biologics, tobacco and financial service data concerns, predicts Jeffrey Schott, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.



“Once they come up with a deal and they table the legislation, then it’s in the interest of the congressional leadership to get it done,” Schott told POLITICO Pro. “The wild card is getting the implementing legislation drafted and the key to [that] is to resolve these political problems.”


Trade promotion authority requires Congress to vote to approve or reject the agreement within 90 days of the White House submitting it for a vote. But Congress shouldn’t need anything close to that to pass the pact if the right deals have been struck, Schott said.


In 2011, President Barack Obama submitted trade deals with South Korea, Panama and Colombia to Congress on Oct. 3. It took the House and Senate just eight days to complete committee and floor action on agreements and Obama signed them into law on Oct. 21.



Still, to set up a similar scenario for TPP, “the administration has to work out fixes with congressional leaders fairly quickly,” Schott said. The former U.S. Treasury official said he does not believe it would be politically viable to pass TPP in the lame duck session of Congress if it has not happened by then.


FROMAN: ‘WHY WAIT’ ON TPP VOTE?

In that vein, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman appears to be chomping at the bit to get to a vote. “With this historic agreement in hand, the question isn’t whether America should lead on trade, but why wait?,” Froman will say to the U.S. Conference of Mayors this morning, according to advance excerpts of his remarks.

“Why wait on cutting thousands of foreign taxes on American exports? Why wait on supporting additional high-paying middle class jobs here in the United States? Why wait on helping our small businesses succeed overseas?,” Froman plans to ask the group. “As mayors, your voices carry as much weight as the great responsibilities that rest on your shoulders. Over one hundred of you supported passage of Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority last summer, and that was critical in helping us get it done. Now, with this historic TPP agreement in hand, your cities are closer than ever to realizing its benefits. Together, we can get it done."

Today's repatriation tax public policy started back in early 1900s with those same ROBBER BARONS and JP Morgan as newly installed US FED.  When national media PRETENDS the 90% tax rate on corporations came from a LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE FDR=====they are LYING.

After the ROARING 20s economic crash moving all wealth to those same global banking 1% OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE-----the US FED and FDR----FDR was one of those ROBBER BARONs placed that high corporate tax of 90% on corporations to keep anyone else from being able to build corporate monopolies that were not tied to JP Morgan, Rothchild, and global banking 1%.

That policy did claw back the excessive corporate frauds happening during those ROARING 20s and anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws installed to benefit those ROBBER BARONS did indeed benefit 99% WE THE PEOPLE.  Controlling corporate monopoly is what created a strong free market US economy most of last century.

What our US 99% keep doing in regards to public policy is thinking those global 1% are working for them with these temporary policies while these same global 1% banking are passing very, very, very, very bad policy as well.  FDR was NOT left social progressive-------

HIS POLICIES WERE LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE.

A Short History of Monopoly
by Tim Darling (email) - January, 2008; (Return to main Monopoly page)

Background: Big Business versus the Working Class (1890-1910)

The time during which Monopoly was born and grew up spanned one stock market crash (in 1893) to another (in 1929). After the 1893 stock market crashed, unemployment among the working class rose significantly. The U.S. Treasury ran out of gold and was forced to sell high-yield bonds to J. P. Morgan and the other Wall Street monopolists at low rates. Debt-ridden farmers called on the government to initiate an income tax to make taxation more fair to lower-income households (they finally did with the 16th Amendment in 1913), among other reforms.

Below we see that vote spurred in 1913---which of course is the year the US FED was installed-------those states behind WANTING TO RAISE TAXATION including that 90% corporate tax rate were strongly SOUTHERN STATES.  Remember, the south back in early 1900 were not INDUSTRIAL REPUBLICAN----they were Democrats wanting majority voting over corporate power and profit Republican voting.  Rockefeller, JP Morgan, Rothchilds and industrial railroads and energy were tied to northern states with leaders being Republican.

So, today's southern states are those who pushed for these heavy FEDERAL TAXES. Flash forward to CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA-----as ROBBER BARON GLOBAL 1% BANKING hitting again-----these few decades have seen the southern states tied to industrial monopoly, energy, and being REPUBLICAN not wanting all those FREE MARKET corporate monopoly and corporate tax rates. We really didn't need 90% corporate tax rates beyond a few decades so bringing them down to 35% was just fine.

Three advocates for a federal income tax ran in the presidential election of 1912.



On February 25, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that the amendment had been ratified by three-fourths of the states and so had become part of the Constitution.[31] The Revenue Act of 1913 was enacted shortly thereafter.


According to the United States Government Publishing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:

1. Alabama (August 10, 1909)
2. Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
3. South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
4. Illinois (March 1, 1910)
5. Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
6. Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
7. Maryland (April 8, 1910)
8. Georgia (August 3, 1910)
9. Texas (August 16, 1910)
10. Ohio (January 19, 1911)
11. Idaho (January 20, 1911)
12. Oregon (January 23, 1911)
13. Washington (January 26, 1911)
14. Montana (January 27, 1911)
15. Indiana (January 30, 1911)
16. California (January 31, 1911)
17. Nevada (January 31, 1911)
18. South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
19. Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
20. North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
21. Colorado (February 15, 1911)
22. North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
23. Michigan (February 23, 1911)
24. Iowa (February 24, 1911)
25. Kansas (March 2, 1911)
26. Missouri (March 16, 1911)
27. Maine (March 31, 1911)
28. Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
29. Arkansas (April 22, 1911), after having previously rejected the amendment
30. Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
31. New York (July 12, 1911)
32. Arizona (April 3, 1912)
33. Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
34. Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
35. West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
36. Delaware (February 3, 1913)

Ratification (by the requisite 36 states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by Delaware. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two[33] of the forty-eight then existing:

1. New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
2. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
3. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
4. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
5. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
6. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913), after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911

The legislatures of the following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it:

• Connecticut
• Rhode Island
• Utah
• Virginia[34]

The legislatures of the following states never considered the proposed amendment:

• Florida
• Pennsylvania

__________________________________________


BANKING,OIL, AND RAILROADS were the primary corporate monopolies controlled by those dastardly global banking 1% ROBBER BARONs after the ROARING 20s.

While the banking global 1% ROBBER BARONs became protected and hidden behind the veil of US FED -----those oil/energy ROBBER BARONs were hidden from these 90% corporate tax rates by the OIL SUBSIDIES we see below.  All this occurred in in FDR era.

This was the earliest period of issues over REPATRIATION TAXES----as our banking and oil industries were overseas drilling and involved in global investments.  Those SUBSIDIES were as great as those 90% corporate tax rates passed at the time US FED was installed 1913.

The goal for those ROBBER BARON GLOBAL BANKING 1% was to make the cost of business so expensive as to allow only those rich tying to global banking being able to expand more and more US industries through 20th century. 


'How the United States Taxes Foreign-Source Income

The federal government taxes US resident multinational firms on their worldwide income at the same rates applied to domestic firms; the current maximum tax rate—the rate that applies to most corporate income—is 35 percent. US multinationals may claim a credit for taxes paid to foreign governments on income earned abroad, but only up to their US tax liability on that income'.

What started with ROCKEFELLER in OIL ENERGY----went to BUSH family as TEXAS became central to oil industry.
These same global banking 1% tied to oil and banking pushed those 90% corporate tax rates and installed those corporate tax laws requiring US corporations that expand overseas must pay REPATRIATION TAXES



'Report Shows The Oil Industry Benefits From $5.3 Trillion in Subsidies Annually

By Rmuse on Tue, Jun 9th, 2015 at 11:18 am'



Intangible Drilling Costs ($3.5 billion “subsidy” – low estimate is $780 million) - Intangible Drilling Costs are essentially the cost of drilling a new well that have no salvageable value. Currently, most exploration companies are allowed to deduct 100% of the costs in the year they are incurred with the majors able to deduct 70% of the costs immediately with the remaining 30% amortized over 5 years. In what world would money spent that may or may not be recovered be capitalized as an asset?


Royalty Payment Reductions on Federal Lands ($2.2 billion “subsidy”) While paying no royalties on some offshore plots and reduced royalties in some regions might be considered a break by many. The incomes derived from operations are taxed at the same levels as any other income - hardly a “subsidy”.



Depletion Allowance ($1 billion subsidy – low estimate is $900 million) The depletion allowance allows companies to treat reserves in the ground as a capitalized asset that may be written down by 15% per year. The government only allows the “subsidy” for independent producers. Integrated oil companies such as Exxon, BP etc. are not allowed the exemption. Companies across the US are allowed a depreciation deduction for taxation purposes. The oil & gas industry should not be an exception.
______________________________________________

At the same time of ROARING 20s, the economic crash and FDR installing anti-monopoly/heavy Federal corporate taxation our US labor unions became stronger.  Our US labor unions were serious local fighters for local member workers making strong gains for US workers in wages and workplace safety.  There we many, many different labor unions initially-----but below we see when our US labor unions started to CONSOLIDATE--------this was just as NIXON WENT TO CHINA---to open CHINA TO FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES and US corporations moving overseas.

So, our US labor leaders in 1980s shifted from being US labor unions to preparing to being international labor unions consolidating into monopoly as were our US corporations.

THIS WAS THE POINT REAGAN WAS ELECTED LOWERING TAX RATES ON RICH AND CORPORATIONS AND SHIFTING THAT TAX BURDEN TO OUR US 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE.

It was during this REAGAN/CLINTON era -----that global empire-building neo-liberalism that our US LABOR UNIONS became tied to INTERNATIONAL LABOR UNIONS and were the force behind installing a far-right wing global banking 1% CLINTON in our DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Now, our rank and file labor union members were NOT wanting these consolidations---they understood they were losing control of union policies----union leadership -----it was those 5% to the 1% FAKE UNION LEADERS that rose to our US labor union leadership.


'AFL-CIO membership is consolidating into fewer unions

• In 1979, there were 108 AFL-CIO affiliates; there are now 66, with a total of 13 million members.
• 15 largest affiliates represent 10 of 13 million total members
• 9 largest affiliates represent 8 of 13 million total members
• Only 18 affiliates have more than 200,000 members
• 40 AFL-CIO affiliate have under 100,000 members
• Average membership of the smallest 50 affiliates is 58,000'

This is important because------our US LABOR UNIONS would have been the strongest voice in our US cities while US corporations went overseas-----to assure those REPATRIATION CORPORATE TAXES came back to our US cities to rebuild our local economies for labor union members left unemployed------but they did not----because they were 5% LABOR UNION LEADER PLAYERS.

At the same time, as our US labor union membership shrank-----ties to OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% FREEMASONRY soared-----that is how we got to being totally captured by 5% FREEMASON/GREEKS working for global banking 1% killing 99% of WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens.


'Another very important role of the medieval guilds  – either merchant or craftsmen – was the enforcement of monopolies. Guilds allowed only their members the right to exercise a craft within the confines of a city'.

So, these few decades have seen our US labor unions fighting for wage, workplace, and corporate power be the PLAYERS FIGHTING TO BRING REPATRIATION TAXES BACK TO US to rebuild US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. 


Multinational Corporations Withheld Trillions in Profits During the Recession. Now, Bill Clinton Wants to Reward Them for It.
By Danny Vinik
May 14, 2014




Bill Clinton is always one to make a deal. Speaking at the Peterson Foundation Fiscal Summit on Wednesday, the former president proposed a way to rebuild America’s aging infrastructure while giving corporations a huge tax cut—a plan that may have what it takes to cut through Congress' partisan gridlock.

President Barack Obama has repeatedly called for more infrastructure spending during his time in office. His most recent plan, as part of his 2015 federal budget, would spend $302 billion on infrastructure over the next four years. Given the historically low interest rates at which the U.S. can borrow and the growing need for infrastructure investment, it would make sense to fund the proposal with debt. But Obama keeps his plan deficit-neutral by closing corporate tax breaks anyways.



Due to Republican opposition, Obama’s plan is dead on arrival in the House. But Clinton's idea is supported by politicians on both sides of the aisle. He would grant U.S. multinational corporations a repatriation tax holiday as long as they bought infrastructure bonds with 10 percent of the repatriated funds. In other words, U.S. companies would get a big tax break as long as they helped seed an infrastructure bank. Representative John Delaney and senators Michael Bennet and Roy Blunt have introduced similar proposals in the House and Senate.  

DULANEY IS MARYLAND AND A CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL



"I believe if we repatriated the money now on terms that required say, 10 percent, of it to go into an infrastructure bank with a guaranteed rate of return, tax-exempt, of X, as a first step towards corporate tax reform, you could get a lot of that money back in America, turn it over, increase economic growth and launch the infrastructure bank with an adequate level of capital," Clinton said.




U.S. multinational firms are currently sitting on more than $2 trillion in foreign profits because they are confident that they can avoid paying the full 35 percent corporate tax rate: A “one-time” repatriation tax holiday granted by President George W. Bush in 2004 has convinced them to hold out for another one. In 2004, multinationals could bring back up to $500 million with a one-time tax exemption of 85 percent—lowering the effective tax rate to 5.25 percent. Under the agreement, companies were required to invest the funds domestically to spur economic growth. But money is fungible—multiple studies have found that firms did not use the money for those purposes.




“The evidence shows that firms mostly used the repatriated earnings not to invest in U.S. jobs or growth but for purposes that Congress sought to prohibit, such as repurchasing their own stock and paying bigger dividends to their shareholders,” economists Chuck Marr and Brian Highsmith wrote about the 2004 repatriation holiday. “Moreover, many firms actually laid off large numbers of U.S. workers even as they reaped multi-billion-dollar benefits from the tax holiday and passed them on to shareholders.”


Even worse, the 2004 holiday set a precedent. Now, multinationals are even more committed to holding funds overseas, expecting that they will eventually receive yet another holiday. Another tax repatriation holiday would only provide multinationals further incentive to keep the money overseas, which would further decrease government revenues. In 2011, the Joint Committee on Taxation calculated that a repatriation tax holiday similar to Bush’s would decrease revenues by $79 billion over a decade. Clinton’s plan differs from Bush’s, but the principle that drives lower revenues—multinationals keeping future profits overseas—is the same.



Then, as Jared Bernstein has written, there is the basic question of fairness. Multinational corporations, holding out for a tax break, have withheld trillions of dollars in profits that could have boosted the economy over the past six years. Domestic producers have not had that luxury. Multinationals are simply reacting to incentives created by Bush, but now it's time to show them that the 2004 holiday was a one-time-only offer. 
____________________________________________

When we are shouting CORPORATIONS NEED TO PAY TAXES----when we are shouting that TAXATION IS TOO HIGH on 99% of WE THE PEOPLE----this is the public policy KILLING our uniform taxation laws ------and those 5% to the 1% players pretending to be 'labor and justice' are promoting these global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA doing this.

The term US MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS did not come into being until this NIXON-CHINA era -----

When US citizens think I DON'T CARE whether a corporation is US or multi-national then they are bringing back to US those OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% MEDIEVAL labor structures.  Poverty today in US looks nothing like poverty in DARK AGES-----far-right, authoritarian dictatorship looks nothing today in US under CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA NOW TRUMP then it did back in DARK AGES.

REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES shout against REPATRIATION TAXES being brought back because they are attached to bringing multi-national global corporate campuses and NOT rebuilding our US free market small, regional, and US corporate economy. 

BUSH created this REPATRIATION TAX policy to assure any growth of corporate strength in US continued to be captured by global banking 1%----this is what is making our US economy stagnant, crony, monopoly heading for global monopoly.



'U.S. multinational firms are currently sitting on more than $2 trillion in foreign profits because they are confident that they can avoid paying the full 35 percent corporate tax rate: A “one-time” repatriation tax holiday granted by President George W. Bush in 2004 has convinced them to hold out for another one'.


CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA NOW TRUMP are enforcing only monopoly and global monopoly ----those OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% can do business in US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----at the same time our US labor unions are morphing into INTERNATIONAL TRADE GUILDS working for global banking 1%----

FAR-RIGHT WING EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY instead of our US LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE LABOR RIGHTS AND STRONG WAGES.

'Another very important role of the medieval guilds  – either merchant or craftsmen – was the enforcement of monopolies. Guilds allowed only their members the right to exercise a craft within the confines of a city'.


BOXER is far-right global banking 1% Clinton neo-liberal-----RAND AND RON PAUL are far-right wing global banking 1% LIBERTARIANS=====same thing. This current infrastructure building is VITAL to 99% US WE THE PEOPLE and our 99% global immigrant citizens.


Paul, Boxer team up on transportation funding


By Keith Laing - 01/29/15 12:09 PM EST 8

Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) are teaming up to file a transportation funding bill they say could bring back up to $2 trillion in corporate tax revenue currently in foreign banks to help pay for U.S. infrastructure projects.

The unlikely duo said the measure would extend federal transportation programs that are currently scheduled to expire in May.

Paul and Boxer said the tax reforms, known as repatriation, are the most viable way to pay for a long-term transportation funding bill this year.



"The interstate highway system is of vital importance to our economy," Paul, who is a likely 2016 GOP presidential candidate, said in a statement.

"All across the country, bridges and roads are deficient and in need of replacement," he continued. "We can help fund new construction and repair by lowering the repatriation rate and bringing money held by U.S. companies back home. This would mean no new taxes, but more revenue, and it is a solution that should win support from both political parties.”

Boxer, who is retiring at the end of 2016, also said the plan to use revenue from taxing oversees corporate profits was a more politically viable alternative to boost federal infrastructure funding than increasing the nation's 18.4 cents-per-gallon gas tax, which has been discussed in recent weeks as prices at the pump have fallen sharply.

"The bipartisan repatriation proposal is a win-win for our economy and our country," she said. "First, it will bring back hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign earnings that are sitting offshore, which can be invested here in America to create jobs. Second, the taxes paid on those earnings will be used to extend the Highway Trust Fund, which supports millions of jobs nationwide.  I hope this proposal will jumpstart negotiations on addressing the shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund, which is already creating uncertainty that is bad for businesses, bad for workers and bad for the economy."

The Department of Transportation's Highway Trust Fund, which has relied on gas tax money since 1956, is currently scheduled to run out of money in May, unless Congress intervenes.

Transportation advocates have argued that raising the gas tax, which predates the highway system by about 20 years, would be the easiest way to close the nation's transportation funding shortfall.

The gas tax has not been increased since 1993, and it has struggled to keep pace with infrastructure expenses in recent years as cars have become more fuel efficient.

The tax at the pump brings in about $34 billion per year. The federal government typically spends about $50 billion per year on road and transit projects, and transportation advocates have maintained that the larger figure is only enough to maintain the current state of U.S. infrastructure.

Republicans leaders like Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) have signaled that they are opposed to asking drivers to pay more at the pump to finance transportation projects, although some GOP senators have said they would be open to discussing an increase in a broader discussion about taxes and infrastructure spending.

Boxer and Paul's legislation would tax repatriated corporate earnings at a rate of 6.5 percent, with the money being transferred to the Highway Trust Fund.

The lawmakers on Thursday did not say how many years their measure would extend the life of the Highway Trust Fund.The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), expressed skepticism Thursday about the viability of Paul and Boxer's proposal.
“Tax holiday proposals designed to pay for the transportation bill sound great until you look at the details," Hatch said in a statement.


"After all, the Joint Committee on Taxation has clearly detailed how a stand-alone temporary tax holiday would end up costing the government in the end," Hatch continued. "Saying you're going to use something that loses money to pay for anything is just wrong. Therefore, saying you're going to use it to pay for infrastructure is just bad policy, plain and simple. Such proposals to end the lock-out effects of earnings should only be considered in the context of tax reform.”



The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has said that a tax holiday, as repatriation plans have been referred to, would generate about $20 billion in revenue initially. The analysis said the plan would ultimately cost the federal government about $96 billion, as companies would have more incentive to keep their profits abroad and wait for another tax holiday.

The bipartisan repatriation measure joins a growing number of transportation funding bills that are being filed in both chambers as lawmakers search for solution to infrastructure shortfall before the Highway Trust Fund goes bankrupt.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said this week that he is filing a $1 trillion transportation bill, although he did not identify a source for the funding beyond the gas tax revenue.

Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.) filed a $170 million transportation bill in the House that he said would extend the Highway Trust Fund for six years.

The current transportation funding bill, which spends about $11 billion and authorizes the collection of the gas tax at its current rate, is scheduled to expire on May 31.
_________________________________________

The US FED and those ROBBER BARONs from early 1900s are today's multi-national corporations--MOVING FORWARD has nothing to do with growing our American economic strength.

The amount of repatriation corporate tax due to each US city---as BALTIMORE ---is enough to rebuild our infrastructure ----for each community and our downtown filled with local small and regional businesses.  As well, this talk of infrastructure building is tied not only to REPATRIATION TAX but our GASOLINE TAX. 

We have shouted that Baltimore 99% of citizens over several decades have rebuilt our local water and sewage system three times over with the UTILITY TAXES tied to our monthly bills.  This same situation goes for the GASOLINE TAXES we have paid for those several decades----we have REBUILT our local roads and highways three times over with those state and Federal gas taxes ALREADY PAID.

'The current transportation funding bill, which spends about $11 billion and authorizes the collection of the gas tax at its current rate, is scheduled to expire on May 31'.

Know who WASN'T paying those GAS TAXES?  Those multi-national corporations doing all their work in overseas FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.  US cities since FDR have been duty-free tax zones for import/export since FDR.  What CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA/TRUMP and LIBERTARIANS are now saying is 99% WE THE PEOPLE need to pay higher GAS TAXES to fund infrastructure building.

LAWS BY STATE COMPTROLLERS LIKE MARYLAND'S FRANCHOT-----HAVE INSTALLED A VAT TAX ON ENERGY TRANSPORT JUST SO GLOBAL CORPORATIONS WILL PAY NO TAX.

AND OF COURSE----all these regressive taxes are no longer tied to oil and gas-----this Supreme Court ruling deregulating all that 'GREEN ENERGY' and SMART METER delivery of home energy is filled with growing infrastructure taxes hitting only the 99% WE THE PEOPLE.

TESLA owned by MUSK who is that OLD WORLD MERCHANT OF VENICE GLOBAL 1%--------NO US sovereignty anywhere in our current economic development----but taxes soaring on what are COLONIAL workers.



4 Companies That Could Make Billions From This Supreme Court Ruling


A new revenue source could be opening up in the utility space.



Travis Hoium
(TMFFlushDraw)


Jan 28, 2016 at 8:20AM


If you're a energy investor in the U.S., you've probably been eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling about FERC's Order 745. Or maybe that was that just me?


Seriously, though, a Supreme Court ruling handed down on Monday January 25, 2016 could change the electricity business as we know it in a number of ways. It paves the way for demand to be treated as a resource in the same way supply is, which could create an entirely new business model in electricity all across the country.


What this ruling is

I won't go into the gritty details about what the ruling was (you can read the full ruling here), but the short story is that wholesale power companies were challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's ability to create rules that will govern demand response.

 
Demand response, in its simplest form, is what happens when the electricity market puts a dollar value on consumers who don't use electricity. You can think of it like telling you I'll pay you $1 to not run your dishwasher between the hours of 8:00 and 5:00 tomorrow. 



In reality, demand response is more complicated than that, but FERC will now be able to create rules that treat demand as a resource, the same way electricity supply is a resource. This will create a world of opportunity for companies innovating in this space. Here are a few potential winners.

 
EnerNOC

One of the real pioneers of demand response was EnerNOC (NASDAQ:ENOC). The company built a large network of customers who would adjust demand by turning down air conditioners or lighting when EnerNOC asked them to, and EnerNOC would then bid that potential energy savings into competitive wholesale markets, primarily PJM.


The business has grown rapidly as it built out demand capacity, but the court battle leading up to this ruling took its toll on the company. If the Supreme Court had ruled the other way, it could have undermined EnerNOC's entire demand response business by stripping FERC's power.  


ENOC data by YCharts



As it stands today, EnerNOC will be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the ruling. It's hard to tell what the financial impact will be, given the company's losses over a long period of time, but this is a company to keep an eye on as the demand response market opens up. 


Demand response could be a revenue generator for the Tesla Powerwall. Image: Tesla Motors.


SolarCity


Distributed resources, or energy resources not coming from the central grid, got a big boost with this ruling, and that plays into SolarCity's (NASDAQ:SCTY) wheelhouse. Rooftop solar is just the start of the company's long-term plans, which include energy storage and smart controls of the house. A decade from now, I wouldn't be surprised if SolarCity wasn't offering a full suite of products that will create energy, store energy, and consume energy all when it's best for the consumer.


Having the ability to provide energy or energy savings to the grid at a competitive rate could also help alleviate the pressure of changes to net metering. The current net metering structure is slowly fading away, particularly in California, and this could create a new revenue stream on top of electricity from solar panels, all controlled through a SolarCity inverter.



Google and Apple

Don't look now, but Alphabet's (NASDAQ:GOOGL) Google and Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) have been building platforms for smarter energy usage for years. The Nest Smart Meter and Apple HomeKit will be the platforms they build off, and that includes demand response.



Google has already launched a program called Rush Hour Rewards, which will help you earn money from lowering your energy usage. If this is expanded to include control of more devices, such as washers and dryers, and expanded into more markets, it could create a big market for Nest.  Google doesn't break out Nest unit sales but there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Nest devices already in the field, and Google could add this revenue source to their capabilities.


Apple's HomeKit could serve a similar role as Nest, although it's uncertain how Apple views its role in the smart home. HomeKit could be the central command point for smart home devices, and a demand response system could be integrated into that. What would be key for Apple would be ingraining customers further into its ecosystem. If you have a smart home that runs on HomeKit, everyone in the home has an incentive to have an iPhone, iPad, Mac, and/or Apple TV. That's a lot of recurring sales as people dive deeper into the Apple ecosystem.


Energy innovation is at hand

What the expansion of demand response markets really does is open up all kinds of energy innovation options for companies. Everything from smart thermostats to energy storage can now become a revenue opportunity. This changes the game in energy and will be a big threat to the utility status quo, something we can partially thank the Supreme Court for.
__________________________________________

Our corporate taxation has always been about holding corporations accountable for infrastructure they use HEAVILY----repatriation taxation were those tax funds to maintain our US cities and county infrastructure.

The US needs to reinstate that 90% corporate tax rate to claw back the same corporate fraud as in ROARING 20s -------all of what is AMERICAN INFRASTRUCTURE ----our roads, highways, bridges, sidewalks, airports----were paid by these corporate taxes.  The REPATRIATION CORPORATE TAX LAWS installed at that time recognized the fact that it is corporations and their products using all of the above more than any one citizen.  What CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA did was to ignore the collection of any corporate taxes---repatriated or not.  These are the years our US infrastructure took the turn for the worse with no maintenance.

99% WE THE PEOPLE MUST FIGHT TO KEEP CORPORATE TAXES AT LEAST WHERE THEY ARE IF NOT HIGHER AND COLLECTED.

We have discussed the goal of global banking 1% in MOVING FORWARD of simply saying our US strong wages will be brought down to third world level by simply claiming taxes, fees, penalties taking more and more of our take-home pay.

Our 99% global labor immigrants need to understand today's CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA policies are the opposite of what made US domestic economy and free market economy with full employment soar------please take our US labor unions back to being left social progressive and bring these tax policies with them!

14 Ways A 90 Percent Top Tax Rate Fixes Our Economy And Our Country


April 26, 2010 Dave Johnson



A return to Eisenhower-era 90% top tax rates helps fix our economy in several ways:

1) It makes it take longer to end up with a fortune. In fact it makes people build andearn a fortune, instead of shooting for quick windfalls. This forces long-term thinking and planning instead of short-term scheming and scamming. If grabbing everything in sight and running doesn’t pay off anymore, you have to change your strategy.



2) It gets rid of the quick-buck-scheme business model. Making people take a longer-term approach to building rather than grabbing a fortune will help reattach businesses to communities by reinforcing interdependence between businesses and their surrounding communities. When it takes owners and executives years to build up a fortune they need solid companies that are around for a long time. This requires the surrounding public infrastructure of roads, schools, police, fire, courts, etc., to be in good shape to provide long-term support for the enterprise. You also want your company to build a solid reputation for serving its customers rather than cheapening the product, pursuing quick-buck scams, cutting customer service, etc. The current Wall Street/private equity business model of looting companies, leaving behind an empty shell, unemployed workers and a surrounding community in devastation will no longer be a viable business strategy.



3) It will lower the executive crime rate. Today it is possible to run scams that let you pocket huge sums in a single year, and leave behind the mess you make for others to fix. A high top tax rate removes the incentive to lie, cheat and steal to grab every buck you can as fast as you can. This reduces the temptation to be dishonest.If you aren’t going to keep the whole dime, why risk doing the time? When excessive, massive paydays are possible, it opens the door to overwhelming greed and a resulting compromising of principles. Sort of the definition of the decades since Reagan, no?

4) Combined with badly-needed cuts in military spending – we spend more on military than all other countries on earthcombined – taxing the wealthy ends budget deficits and starts paying off the massive Reagan/Bush debt. This reduces and ultimately eliminates the share of the budget that goes to pay interest. The United States now has to pay a huge share of its budget just to cover the interest on the borrowing that tax cuts made necessary. Paying off the debt would remove this huge drag on our economy. (Never mind that Alan Greenspan famously called for Bush’s tax cuts by saying it was dangerous to pay off our debt – now that same Alan Greenspan says we need to cut benefits to retired people because our debt is so high.)



5) It will bring in revenue to pay for improvements in infrastructure that then cause the economy to explode for the better. Investing in modern transit systems, smart grid, energy efficiency, fast internet and other improvements leads to a huge payoff of increased prosperity for all of us – especially for those at the top income levels. Infrastructure improvement and maintenance is the “seed corn” of economic growth. We have been eating that seed corn since Reagan’s tax cuts.



6) (related) It will bring in revenue for improving our schools, colleges and universities. Not only will this help our competitiveness, but it will improve each of our lives and level of happiness.

7) It will boost economic growth and rebuild a strong middle class. A consumption-based economy does better when consumers have more to spend. Perhaps not cause-and-effect, though I suspect so, but after FDR raised top tax rates the economy grew dramatically. The 90% top rate years under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and the beginning of the Kennedy years were the years when we built the middle class. And remember, after Clinton raised top tax rates only modestly the economy grew. How’s it been doing since Bush’s tax cuts for the rich?


A look at economic growth rate charts shows a steady decline in the decades since top tax rates began to fall. Is it just a coincidence that the economy booms after tax increases that provide revenue to invest in new “seed corn,” and that the economy declines as we reduce taxes?



8) It is good for business because increased revenue will enable increasing government spending for the benefit of regular people. This recirculates money into the economy more productively than the current system of putting huge fortunes into a few hands and hoping for a resulting consumption of high-end goods. The wealthy can only spend so muc h so more disposable income in the hands of regular people is good for business. Any business owner will tell you they want customers more than they want tax cuts. (Let’s wait until the top one percent no longer owns most of everything before we talk about whether there is an effect on investment.)



9) It protects working people. Exploiting workers with long hours, low pay or lack of pay increases, lack of worker protections, firing union organizers and schemes that call employees “contractors” will no longer pay off as it does today. The era of extreme union-busting came in at the same time as the tax cuts.


10) It redistributes income and wealth in ways that help all of us. Currently a few people receive most of the income and own most of everything. A very high top tax rate reduces this concentration of wealth.



11) It fights the political instability that results from concentration of wealth. Great inequality in a society and the resulting loss of opportunity results in political instability that can lead to extreme ideologies, rebellion, etc. We are seeing all the signs of a resurgence of these problems today.


12) It will help rebuild our sense of democracy and belief in equality. As we have seen and are seeing, when too much is in the hands of too few, they have too much power and influence and use it to get even more.



13) It will strengthen the government that We, the People have worked hard to build, and strengthen its ability to enforce the laws and regulations that protect all of us and the resources we hold in common. It will increase its ability to provide all of usequally with the benefits of our joint efforts and our economy.



14) Finally, for good measure, increasing top tax rates will cause those affected to work harder to make up the difference. The Ayn Randians claim the very rich are the “producers” and all the rest of us are just parasites and slackers who feed off their “work.” So it will be very good for our economy to get them working harder by taxing them at 90%! You may have heard about those 25 hedge fund managers who brought in an average of $1 billion each last year – an amount that would have paid for 658,000 teachers — while the rest of the country suffered through a terrible economy. If we had a top tax rate of 90% they would “only” take home $100 million or so each – in a single year. And we could have 658,000 more teachers. So it’s a win-win.


Taxes are how we all pitch in to enjoy the benefits and protections of modern society. Those benefits and protections are what enable people to become wealthy, and we ask that they give some back so others can prosper as well.

____________________________________________

What today's 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE are forgetting is this--------back in  late 1800s after the civil war the southern states started to industrialize and moved to being REPUBLICAN INDUSTRIALISTS-------while those ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE GLOBAL BANKING 1% took over the US Democratic Party.  So, WILSON/FDR and early 1900s DEMOCRATS were NOT left social progressives.  They pretended to be because the DEMOCRATIC PARTY is the party of majorities of citizens fighting those Republican industrialists.  It is when the US FED was installed in 1913 by WOODROW WILSON that the US went to empire-building......by only a few ROBBER BARON GLOBAL 1% industrialists.

PROGRESSIVE for WILSON and FDR means ECONOMIC PROGRESSIVE---making the rich extremely rich.  PROGRESSIVE to our REAL left social labor and justice who FDR and later candidates pretended to aid------are the POLICIES-----NOT THESE POLS.

WILSON with the US FED and ROBBER BARONS installed anti-monopoly/ati-trust laws and regulated and taxed corporations after the Great Depression for THEIR OWN GAINS AND POWER but those laws were great for 99% WE THE PEOPLE.  We simply have allowed those PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS tied to the rich to capture all our voice in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  We had strong social progressives in our cities and state government----we need them back today----GET RID OF THESE GLOBAL 1% OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE----AND THEIR 5% POLS AND PLAYERS black, white, and brown citizens.


The US has gone to discussing ONLY the designation of MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION-----and here we see the OTHER CORPORATE TAX LAWS bringing global banking 1% corporations during WILSON/FDR

'During World War I, trade routes and supply chains were disrupted. In the aftermath, the international corporation changed to face the increasing tariffs and protectionist laws prevalent in the 1920s and 1930s. This was when the multinational corporation was born, creating manufacturing operations in other countries and selling to those countries’ local markets in order to circumvent high tariffs and taxes in their own jurisdictions.

The “country-less” multinational corporation that has emerged over the last thirty years'

The 'racism' tied to far-right wing global banking neo-liberals like WILSON and CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA/NOW TRUMP is their ties to OLD WORLD EUROPEAN global 1% ------who of course were WHITE. Our 99% of white citizens have been killed for thousands of years by these BEOWULFS and KINGS AND QUEENS!



Woodrow Wilson, Progressive Bogeyman


by John Fund November 20, 2015 4:00 AM @JohnFund


The racially charged protests that have roiled 23 universities from Yale to the University of Missouri in recent weeks reached Princeton on Wednesday. Members of the Black Justice League left their classes and occupied historic Nassau Hall, which houses the Princeton administration’s offices. They demanded that officials acknowledge the racist legacy of Woodrow Wilson — who was president of Princeton before becoming president of the United States — and expunge his name from anything named after him. They further demanded “cultural competency training” for anyone teaching at Princeton, courses on the “history of marginalized people,” and a designated public space for the exclusive use of black students. President Christopher Eisgruber met with the students and was faced with jeers. One student said: Woodrow Wilson “is a murderer. We owe him nothing. This university owes us everything. I walk around this campus understanding that this was built on the backs of my people and I owe none of you guys anything. We owe white people nothing. If not for the evilness and of white hatred in this country . . . we would not have to be fighting for our rights.” Eisgruber tried to mollify the students by saying he thought that courses on marginalized people should be added to the curriculum but couldn’t act unilaterally. He agreed that Wilson “was a racist” but added that “in some people, you have good in great measure and evil in great measure.” He said he won’t change the name of the 85-year-old Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs or other campus landmarks. RELATED: The University Gone Feral A group of 40 angry students rejected his overture, continued to occupy Eisgruber’s office, and slept overnight in it. The standoff continued through Thursday. It was perhaps inevitable that the progressive protesters would eventually start demanding that progressive icons be airbrushed out of history. It is particularly difficult for Democrats and liberals to give up Wilson, who has long been honored for promoting progressive causes such as the Federal Reserve Act and the progressive income tax. Wilson was the first major progressive hero to advocate scrapping the “checks and balances” view of the Constitution. “All that progressives ask or desire is permission — in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution’ is the scientific word — to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle.” RELATED: The Pink Guards on Campus But Wilson’s “survival of the fittest” led him to want to “improve” people as well. As governor of New Jersey in 1911, he signed a law providing for the sterilization of the “feeble-minded . . . and other defectives” a law extreme enough that it was declared invalid by the New Jersey Supreme Court. But Wilson’s discriminatory racial views weren’t blocked while he was president of Princeton. He actively discouraged blacks from applying to Princeton, and when he became president of the United States in 1913, he quickly moved to segregate federal-government workplaces. Astonishingly, a 1916 document has surfaced showing that Franklin D. Roosevelt, then Wilson’s deputy secretary of the navy, personally signed an order segregating bathrooms in the Navy Department.

According to Wilson biographer Arthur Link, key Wilson cabinet officers “made a clean sweep of Negro political appointees in the South and allowed local postmasters and collectors of internal revenue either to downgrade or dismiss Negro workers with civil service status.” Bruce Bartlett, author of Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (2007), notes that “in 1914 the Civil Service began demanding photographs for the first time. It was widely understood that the only purpose of this requirement was to weed out black applicants.” More Higher Education ‘The people,’ &c. A Professor Recounts Title IX Ordeals, Including His Own Bros, Cont. Whereas Theodore Roosevelt, who preceded Wilson as president by a few years, had famously invited black leader Booker T. Washington to the White House, Wilson made Birth of a Nation (1915), effectively a Ku Klux Klan recruiting film, the first movie ever shown in the White House. He also cracked down on the civil liberties of Americans of all races. As Bartlett notes: “Wilson’s Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer, who was just as rabid an anti-Communist as [Joseph] McCarthy, did far more to repress free speech and political freedom than McCarthy ever attempted.” Progressive activists began their historical purge last year by getting several state Democratic parties to end their traditional “Jefferson-Jackson Day” dinners on the grounds that Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were racists. Not satisfied, they are now turning on Wilson, and who knows whether FDR, who didn’t allow his black and white White House servants to eat together, is next. Of course, scoring historical points for one side or another shouldn’t be the priority of today’s civil-rights efforts. As I wrote last year: Conservative efforts to reach out to African Americans must begin with appreciation and recognition of African Americans’ history of subordination and oppression. In terms of issues, conservatives must continue to point out the real-life consequences to minorities of today’s failed liberal policies. . . . Former Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa recounted how “deeply troubled” he is over the refusal of many teachers’ unions to embrace educational reform. “At a time when only one in 10 low-income children is earning a four-year college degree and two out of three jobs of the future will require one, change is needed,” he wrote. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that some Democrats want to distract attention from their lock-step support of the status quo by waving the racial bloody flag. The issue of whether or not to sandblast Woodrow Wilson’s name into oblivion is a diversion from a more productive racial public-policy imperative. On the one hand, we must reorient government policies so people can climb the ladder of opportunity, regardless of race. On the other, we need leaders who will refuse to coddle, patronize, or let their guilt placate those who wish to use racism as their excuse for every grievance.

___________________________________________
No one hates REGRESSIVE TAXATION today then our US city low-income communities. They associate high taxation with DEMOCRATS when REPUBLICANS are the source of all these high taxes.


When WOODROW WILSON/FDR installed the US FED and unleashed the ROARING 20s for the ROBBER BARON GLOBAL BANKING 1% to loot our US Treasury back then----we need to take note of not only how our US labor unions went from being left social progressive in Democratic platform but our US black citizens as well. THE HARLEM RENAISSANCE was named RENAISSANCE because global banking 1% wanted to create that 1% BOULE of US black citizens to work for the OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% AS FREEMASONS.


Who installed all these 90% corporate taxes and corporate regulations? These ROBBER BARON GLOBAL BANKING POLS. Who were killed when these same pols sent US corporations overseas and did not bring back those REPATRIATION TAXES? Our US city low-income communities.


If we continue to allow MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1%----99% of black, white, and brown citizens will be BURIED IN REGRESSIVE AND REPRESSIVE TAXES tied to US FED and our ROBBER BARON global banking 1% neo-liberals---then Bush neo-cons.

We must know this history of REPATRIATION TAX AND CORPORATE TAXATION and those pols installing all this to be able to reverse this tax damage AND the public policy of using our global banking 1% STARS to sell bad policies, pols, and societal fads.


1920: The Very Famous Harlem Renaissance

by Muhammad Nouman - July 22, 2017 - Art, BLACK ART, BLACK ART & LITERATURE, Black Culture, BLACK FAMILY, Black History



In the 1920s, an African-American cultural renaissance took place, just because a great amount of Blacks migrated from the rural South towards the urban North of the Country. This renaissance took its name from the neighborhood of New York, Harlem and became one of the major movements in different cities throughout the North and West region. Also famously known as the New Negro Movement and the Black Renaissance, the Harlem Renaissance, the first time in the history, grabbed the attention of mainstream critics and publishers who turned their very attention towards the African-American art, music, literature, and politics.




The Harlem Renaissance had a bunch of leading entertainment talents such as Blues singer Bessie Smith, bandleader Louis Armstrong, pianist Jelly Roll Morton, dancer Josephine Baker, Composer Duke Ellington, and actor Paul Robeson. While on the other hand, James Weldon Johnson, Paul Laurence Dunbar, Claude McKay, Zora Neale Hurston and Langston Hughes were some of the expressive writers. These people were the ones who worked hard day and night for the betterment of African-American nation and were responsible for writing and elaborating about their issues and requirements in the country.



Unfortunately, there was another side of this great exposure, and that is, these emerging Black writers were highly dependent on the publications and publishing houses owned by the White community. While all the famous entertainment places in Harlem such as famous cabaret, the Cotton Club and the prominent Black entertainers of the day played exclusively for the audiences that were White.


In 1926, a white novelist Carl Van Vechten wrote a controversial bestseller about the Harlem life that portrayed the sophistications of many White urban, who took the Black culture as a portal into more vital and primitive way of life. At that time, W.E.B. Du Bois took the initiative and raised his voice against Van Vechten’s novel and criticized some of the work done by the Black writers. Such as the novel Home to Harlem by Claude McKay which stated negative stereotypes of Blacks. With the ongoing Great Depression, organizations like National Urban League and NAACP diverted their focus to the political and economic problems faced by Blacks. The Harlem Renaissance came to a close with a strong influence around the world by opening new doors of opportunities for Black writers and artists.

STERN BUSINESS SCHOOL ---NYU
www.stern.nyu.edu
people.stern.nyu.edu


This international labor leader of SEIU made lots of enemy's of our 99% union members when he left that leadership job to work for OBAMA in what is that global corporate United Nations International Labor Organization structure. When we shout FAKE 5% LABOR LEADERS we are saying what was left social progressive local labor union actions over several decades was captured during CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA by leaders installed tied to OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% BANKING......and that was STERN-----TRUMKA------WEINGARTEN----MARY KAY HENRY------and other leaders tied to INTERNATIONAL LABOR GROUPS. Above we see to whom STERN is likely attached----THE STERN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS in NYC. STERN is a raging global TRADE GUILD organizer for global corporations being OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE. He was never a US labor rights progressive.


When we allowed CLINTON/BUSH to super-size the sending of all our US corporations overseas----we lost what was 300 years of investment in growing these economic powerhouses for our US economy.


THE REPATRIATION TAX INSTALLED IN CLINTON ERA TO ADDRESS THIS-----WAS DESIGNED TO SEND THAT TAX ON PROFITS EARNED OVERSEAS BACK TO OUR US CITIES TO REBUILD AND SPUR LOCAL SMALL AND REGIONAL BUSINESS GROWTH-----THAT REPATRIATION TAX NEVER CAME. FROM THE TIME OF THIS TAX POLICY UNTIL TODAY TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN REPATRIATION TAXES SHOULD HAVE BEEN HITTING OUR US CITIES THESE FEW DECADES.



U.S. Code › Title 26 › Subtitle A › Chapter 1 › Subchapter N › Part II › Subpart B › § 882


26 U.S. Code § 882 - Tax on income of foreign corporations connected with United States business


A foreign corporation engaged in trade or business within the United States during the taxable year shall be taxable as provided in section 11 or 59A,[1] on its taxable income which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States.

'How the United States Taxes Foreign-Source Income

The federal government taxes US resident multinational firms on their worldwide income at the same rates applied to domestic firms; the current maximum tax rate—the rate that applies to most corporate income—is 35 percent. US multinationals may claim a credit for taxes paid to foreign governments on income earned abroad, but only up to their US tax liability on that income'.



GM says Korea labor costs have surged, but has no plans to exit

• Hyunjoo Jin, Reuters

• Apr. 2, 2015, 2:22 AM

By Hyunjoo Jin


ILSAN, South Korea (Reuters) - General Motors Co (GM) on Thursday said its labor costs have risen nearly 50 percent over the past five years in South Korea, where it makes nearly one-fifth of its global output, but that it does not plan to shut any of its four plants there.


GM earlier this year said it plans to end production in Indonesia and cut operations in Thailand as part of broader restructuring. That fueled analyst expectations about reduction in South Korea, where the U.S. automaker has flagged surging labor costs and unstable industrial relations.


"Never say never, OK? But we are not saying that we have any plans to shut down any operations here," Sergio Rocha, GM Korea chief executive, said in an interview at the Seoul Motor Show.


"It is very important for Korea Inc to make sure that we address the competitiveness of our labor costs, which are spiking to certain levels, that may impact our sustainability."


GM classifies South Korea, the world's No.5 carmaker, as one of its "high-cost" countries, Rocha said. The country's biggest automaker, Hyundai Motor Co , suffers pay-related strikes on a near-annual basis and is currently in talks with its union about the way it pays workers.

"I have no doubt that something needs to be done in 'pali pali' to address labor costs," the Brazilian-born Rocha said, using a Korean phrase for "quickly, quickly."



GM's Korean factories have had a troubled 18 months. At the end of 2013, the automaker said it would stop European sales of Chevrolet-branded cars by the end of 2015, most of which are shipped to the continent from Korea.


As a result, GM said it would reduce its Korean staff and shuffle production. The union, fearing plant closure, blocked the restructuring, leaving two plants underutilized.


Rocha said GM Korea is offsetting nearly one third of its European export losses by shipping Trax crossovers to the U.S.


He also said an announcement last month to make its next-generation Cruze compact in Mexico would not change its plan to produce the car in Korea.


As part of GM Korea's annual wage deal last year, when it avoided a usually commonplace strike, the carmaker agreed to build the revamped Cruze in Korea starting in 2017.
__________________________________________


The media was filled with public policy discussions back in 1980-90s over this very issue. We already had allowed too much consolidation breaking our US anti-trust/monopoly laws and we KNEW allowing these US corporations to expand overseas would create SUPER-MONOPOLIES-----as they were still being allowed to be tied to US headquarters. What happened these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---is all that merger and acquisition occurring overseas literally stole very wealthy US assets taking those corporations into multi-national hands with boards filled with global 1% and not a board of US citizens.


So, yes, we should have had a Congress breaking with those US corporations wanting to expand overseas committed to rebuilding local US city economies to replace those lost corporations. We would have had jobs, tax base, development controlled by our local city halls......but REAGAN/CLINTON developed these REPATRIATION TAX SCHEMES pretending those US corporations overseas were still providing US economic activity. What is DETROIT? It is that loss of those global car corporations.


THESE GLOBAL CORPORATIONS ARE NO LONGER AMERICAN MONOPOLIES-----WE DO NOT WANT THEM RETURNING TO OUR US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES

So, now we are told these global corporations coming back to US are MADE IN AMERICA----when of course US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones will not collect taxes ---it is TAX FREE ZONE. Instead they are making US cities PATRONAGE ZONES----this is the MEDIEVAL structure.

There are no laws we could pass to hold global multi-national corporations accountable to US laws and US Constitution and all those FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT pols and players pretending to be DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS know this. They must not be allowed in our US cities.


America’s Monopolies Are Holding Back the Economy


Consolidated corporate power is keeping many products’ prices high and quality low. Why aren’t more politicians opposing it?

Rebecca Cook / Reuters

• Barry C. Lynn
• Feb 22, 2017

There are many competing interpretations for why Hillary Clinton lost last fall’s election, but most observers do agree that economics played a big role. Clinton simply didn’t articulate a vision compelling enough to compete with Donald Trump’s rousing, if dubious, message that bad trade deals and illegal immigration explain the downward mobility of so many Americans.

As it happens, Clinton did have the germ of exactly such an idea—if one knew where to look. In an October 2015 op-ed, she wrote that “large corporations are concentrating control over markets” and “using their power to raise prices, limit choices for consumers, lower wages for workers, and hold back competition from startups and small businesses. It’s no wonder Americans feel the deck is stacked for those at the top.” In a speech in Toledo last fall, Clinton assailed “old-fashioned monopolies” and vowed to appoint “tough” enforcers “so the big don’t keep getting bigger and bigger.”

Clinton’s words were in keeping with Bernie Sanders’s attacks on big banks, but went further, tracing how concentration is a problem throughout the economy. It was a message seemingly tailor-made for the wrathful electorate of 2016. Yet after the Ohio speech, Clinton rarely touched again on the issue. Few other Democrats even mentioned the word monopoly.

The pity is that Clinton’s stance wasn’t simple campaign rhetoric. It was based on a substantial and growing body of research that confirms that consolidation is at the root of many of America’s most pressing economic and political problems.


These include the declining fortunes of rural America as farmers struggle against agriculture conglomerates. It includes the fading of heartland cities like Memphis and Minneapolis as corporate giants in coastal cities buy out local banks and businesses. It includes plunging rates of entrepreneurship and innovation as concentrated markets choke off independent businesses and new start-ups. It includes falling real wages, as decades of mergers have reduced the need for employers to compete to attract and retain workers.


Monopoly is a main driver of inequality, as profits concentrate more wealth in the hands of the few. The effects of monopoly enrage voters in their day-to-day lives, as they face the sky-high prices set by drug-company cartels and the abuses of cable providers, health insurers, and airlines. Monopoly provides much of the funds the wealthy use to distort American politics.


For most of the 20th century the Democratic Party worked hard to prevent such extreme concentration of power. This tradition, which dates to the time of Thomas Jefferson, found expression in anti-monopoly policies designed to protect Americans not just as consumers, but also as citizens and producers, from domination by the powerful. Yet today most Americans associate terms like “freedom” and “liberty” with Republicans, and if that remains the case, Democrats will likely have trouble rebuilding their party as they look to 2018. Many Republicans also oppose the formation of monopolies, but the Democrats in particular would benefit from making it a centerpiece of their platform in the coming years.


The idea that America has a monopoly problem is now beyond dispute. Since 2008 there have been more than $10 trillion in mergers, and the pace of deal-making continues to accelerate, with 2015 setting a record for the most mergers in a year and October 2016 setting the record for the most mergers in a month.


In 2016, The Economist published three cover stories on America’s monopoly problem. The magazine reported that two-thirds of all corporate sectors have become more concentrated since the 1990s, that corporations are far more profitable now than at any time since the 1920s, and that an inordinate amount of profit goes to a very few immense investment funds, such as BlackRock and State Street. In April, the White House Council of Economic Advisers came to much the same conclusion, and called for a “robust reaction to market power abuses.”


Ordinary Americans didn’t need experts to explain the danger of monopoly. Populist movements like the Tea Party, Occupy, and the Sanders campaign have all focused to varying degrees on the threats posed by concentration. Polls show that a majority of Americans now believe big corporations are too powerful. Yet through 2016, mainstream Democrats didn’t acknowledge that this growing fear of monopoly power might affect how citizens vote.


Consider some of the mainstays of Democratic confidence going into the fall, and how these collided with the real world.


Party leaders were, for instance, right that millions of Americans today are grateful for Obamacare. But the travails of Obamacare also reinforced for millions of other Americans that hospital, insurance, and pharmaceutical monopolists are driving up costs and cutting back on care, and that the administration had no plan to stop them.

Party leaders were also right that the U.S. economy is on sounder footing than when Barack Obama took power. But while most citizens are in less-dire straits than they were eight years ago, they also have more time to consider the rest of their lives. They see internet providers blocking them from faster service and cable companies charging too much for their entertainment. They see giant food companies driving down the quality of their milk and chicken, and agriculture corporations driving up the cost of seeds and pesticides. They see a few huge corporations dominating the sale of home mortgages, groceries, office supplies, and restaurant meals, and gouging consumers when they buy everything from eyeglasses to cowboy boots.


Further, party leaders were not wrong that the rate of joblessness has fallen sharply from 2009. But those figures do nothing to address the fact that many of those jobs feel very different from the ones that vanished after the crash of 2008. For millions of working Americans, the vanguard technologies of the last decade are fast turning into oppressive systems of direct control. Consider the truck drivers, warehouse workers, receptionists, nurses, and cabbies who find their actions and even their speech monitored and directed in ever-increasing detail. Or consider the white-collar workers in the Seattle headquarters of Amazon, where, according to a New York Times feature, executives run a “continual performance improvement algorithm on its staff.” Such forms of control, especially when wielded by giant corporations, tend only to amplify the sense of powerlessness.


Further, mainstream Democrats are correct, in their post-election assessments, to acknowledge the need to combat fake news reports. But party leaders would be wise to also address the effects of monopoly on the flow of information between citizens, and the business models of mainstream media. Facebook actively manipulates the flow of real news between journalist and citizen. Amazon actively manipulates the flow of books between America’s authors and readers. By claiming more than 80 percent of all online advertising revenues, Facebook and Google help to drive traditional news publishers and online news start-ups out of business. All political groups rely on independent news media to communicate effectively with voters, and that’s especially true of parties out of power.
* * *
The election of a man like Donald Trump is precisely what the Democratic Party was first built, and then rebuilt, to prevent.                                                                    
When Thomas Jefferson and James Madison founded the party in 1792, their goal was to oppose Alexander Hamilton’s plan to centralize power in a financial aristocracy tied to the state. In place of Hamilton’s vision of an America in which a few capitalists managed most business, leaders of the new party envisioned a political economy in which fighting monopoly and the concentration of power would foster the creation of independent, self-governing citizens.



This experiment in radical economic democracy did not last. In the 1840s, Southern planters seized the party and used it to protect their slave estates. After the Civil War, a new Southern elite wielded the party as a shield against Northern capital and the will of the free farmer, white and black. For a short while the new Republican Party took up the flag of liberty. But the GOP was soon captured by the emerging class of Wall Street tycoons and Gilded Age monopolists.


Only in 1896, during William Jennings Bryan’s run for president, did a group of white, male citizens dedicated to anti-monopolism recapture the levers of control within the Democratic Party. This time they held on, and for most of the next 100 years, through the administrations of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, and beyond, a prime purpose of the Democratic Party was to protect the worker, farmer, shopkeeper, and other independent citizens and innovators from concentrated power.


During these decades, Democrats understood that in making markets and regulating competition they were also establishing a set of political economic checks and balances that helped citizens maintain control over their own destinies and those of the communities in which they lived. In defending this vision, leaders like President Wilson used much the same language as had Jefferson and Madison. “There is no salvation for men in the pitiful condescensions of industrial masters,” Wilson said during the 1912 campaign. “Guardians have no place in a land of freemen.”


In the years between the election of Wilson and the beginning of World War II, Americans built the world’s first modern political economy designed to preserve both liberty and democracy, and also to enable economic growth and innovation. Guided largely by the thinking of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, they did so by devising three distinct but coordinated approaches to competition policy.



In the case of network industries like electricity, railroads, and other “natural monopolies,” they held that the public must directly own the corporation or regulate its actions. In the case of industrial activities like manufacturing cars or chemicals, citizens accepted high degrees of vertical integration and concentration of capital, but they also insisted that all such corporations compete with at least three or four other large corporations making the same products. In all other sectors of the economy—such as retail, farming, and banking—the aim was to promote as wide a distribution of power and opportunity as possible by preventing concentration almost everywhere. Across the political economy, but especially in sectors where capital and power were highly concentrated, they promoted unions to protect the worker.



The result was a revolutionary success. For years, conventional wisdom among mainstream Democrats has held that the New Deal was mainly an experiment in concentration and socialization. Yet with a few exceptions, the main thrust of both the Roosevelt administration and Congress was to promote, in the words of one of the main advocates of centralization under FDR, the “atomization” of American business. Indeed, the U.S. economy became steadily less consolidated year after year from the mid-1930s until the early 1980s.




Besides delivering to citizens much of the—in the words of Justice Brandeis—“industrial liberty” they had demanded, this anti-monopolism also laid the basis for a period of rapid technological advance, material prosperity, and financial stability that helped make possible the broad expansion of American democracy in the great mid-century battles for civil rights. It was a vision that bridged the racial divide; one of the greatest advocates of the Brandeisian vision was Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. It was a vision that even bridged the two parties: Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon both maintained strong antitrust operations during their administrations.



In 1792, Madison wrote that it was the “independent” citizen who served as “the best basis of public liberty, and the strongest bulwark of public safety.” This proved true in the 20th century. For decades, the Democratic Party’s overwhelming electoral success was due in no small part to the fact that it delivered an important form of political economic freedom to the businessperson, worker, shopkeeper, and farmer. These free citizens then returned the party to power.
The end came after the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Reagan brought to power a group of lawyers and economists—loosely affiliated with the University of Chicago—dedicated to overturning the anti-monopoly philosophy of the Democrats. Key leaders of the group included the economist Milton Friedman and the lawyers Richard Posner and Robert Bork. These Reaganites argued that instead of using competition to protect liberty and democracy, the laws should instead promote only efficiency, theoretically in the interest of the consumer. Even straight-up monopoly was fine, they said, as long as the monopolist promised to lower prices.



In previous decades, Democrats would have moved swiftly to counter Reagan’s new pro-monopoly policies. But in the late 1970s a new generation of party leaders had begun to embrace aspects of the libertarianism of the Chicago Schoolers (or, as the Democrats would later call it, neoliberalism). Unlike traditional Democratic ideology, which holds that all economics is political, libertarian ideology holds that markets are self-regulating and inherently competitive and that monopolies are naturally efficient in ways that are good for consumers.


Many among this new breed of Democrats also embraced the corporate monopolists themselves, along with their partners on Wall Street, and competed with Republicans for campaign contributions from the biggest of the big. In the 1990s, this way of thinking and acting lay behind Bill Clinton’s decisions to unleash concentration in the banking, media, energy, and defense sectors, and to embrace a new approach to trade policy that largely opened the U.S. border to foreign monopolists, such as the Brazilian bankers who in recent years have taken over Anheuser-Busch, MillerCoors, Kraft, Heinz, and Burger King. (Late in his administration, Clinton partially corrected course by bringing a tough antitrust suit against Microsoft. The Obama White House followed a similar trajectory: early indifference followed in the last year by vigorous, if insufficient, attempts to take on power.)



The Democratic Party almost entirely failed to live up to its traditional promise to protect the independent farmer, shopkeeper, and businessperson. Instead, party leaders sat by quietly as Wall Street financiers armed with giant corporations expropriated the livelihoods of millions of American families.
Some in the Democratic Party, however, have finally awakened to America’s monopoly problem. Last June, Senator Elizabeth Warren delivered what was the most important anti-monopoly speech in America by a major political figure since Franklin Roosevelt. “Concentration,” Warren said, “threatens our markets, threatens our economy, and threatens our democracy.”


In July, reformers succeeded in writing strong anti-monopoly language into the Democratic Party platform, the first time since 1988. In September, Renata Hesse, then Obama’s acting assistant attorney general for antitrust, delivered a speech that went a long way toward overturning the Chicago School approach to antitrust.




But with the exception of Warren, most of today’s Democrats, to the extent that they even understand the threat posed by monopoly, still treat competition policy as one of many potential solutions to America’s problems, an arrow of roughly equal importance with all the other arrows in the quiver, rather than as a philosophy able to guide thoughts and actions in all corners of the political economy. Donald Trump has proved that economic populism is smart politics. If what he perfected was a version of dangerous populism, based on resentment, xenophobia, and paranoia, then anti-monopolism is smart populism—it directs anger not at immigrants or China, but at monopolists and the policies that empowered them.


An anti-monopoly stance would also provide a way for the Democrats to address their Electoral College problem. One of the by-products of monopolization is that business is becoming concentrated in a few cities, mainly along the coast. Consider St. Louis. In 1980, 22 Fortune 500 companies called the city home; today only nine are left. In 1979, per-capita income in the metro area was 89 percent as high as in New York; since then it has fallen to 77 percent. Even when St. Louisans launch smart companies--like Twitter and Square—they usually flee to the new metropoles.
This, in turn, leads to a concentration of certain kinds of people who tend to think and vote in certain ways, in fewer places. It is no coincidence that this pattern of growing regional inequality looks remarkably like the 2016 electoral map, with coastal states blue and a sea of red in the center of the country. Donald Trump’s success was partly due to the fact that he spoke to the fears of voters in this increasingly stripped-out red zone.



Fully endorsing anti-monopolism would immediately give Democrats a believable pro-business, pro-liberty message that would play in almost every section of every state, and indeed could be wielded immediately by state legislators and attorneys general. In the longer term, a true anti-monopoly program will help to distribute opportunity, commerce, and people more evenly across the nation, exactly as the framers of the Constitution intended.



Perhaps more importantly, anti-monopoly is a simple philosophy that can be understood by every American. Almost everyone wants freedom from bosses, economic and cultural and racial. Almost everyone wants the freedom to make their own families and communities, and their own careers and characters.
Donald Trump rumbled about monopolists a few times during his campaign. And, true, he may yet deliver on his promises to block AT&T’s takeover of Time Warner and to bring an antitrust case against Amazon. But given Trump’s embrace of such Wall Street monopoly-makers as Wilbur Ross and Paul Singer, it’s much easier to imagine that under his administration, concentration in America will get only worse.


The last time the country faced such threats, after the rise of the plutocrats in the early decades of the 20th century, it was the Democrats who spoke directly to the fears of the citizenry. Consider Franklin Roosevelt’s words in 1938. “The liberty of a democracy is not safe,” he said, “if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. … Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.”


The age of true American liberty—in which it is the people who rule both the government and the economy—lies in the muck. But there is a political party with a history of fighting to make it a reality.

_____________________________________________

It is very sad to see what used to be relatively REAL news journals today the same national FAKE NEWS as THE ATLANTIC is in this article. To understand REPATRIATION TAX we must understand ANTI-TRUST MONOPOLY and this article creates myth around 20th century Democrats supposedly fighting US corporate monopoly.
Let's take today to set the stage for next week's discussion on TAX PUBLIC POLICY.



'America’s Monopolies Are Holding Back the Economy
Consolidated corporate power is keeping many products’ prices high and quality low. Why aren’t more politicians opposing it?

Rebecca Cook / Reuters THE ATLANTIC'



Below we see right off the bat the article allows for great big myth-making in allowing a HILLARY CLINTON to act as though she wants to ENFORCE MONOPOLY LAWS as we know the Clinton's broke every anti-trust and monopoly law with ignoring and deregulating industries ----it was those regulations that kept corporations from BECOMING MONOPOLIES. It is also under Clinton in 1990s that our IRS started to ignore corporate tax audits bringing widespread corporate tax evasion.


'It’s no wonder Americans feel the deck is stacked for those at the top.” In a speech in Toledo last fall, Clinton assailed “old-fashioned monopolies” and vowed to appoint “tough” enforcers “so the big don’t keep getting bigger and bigger.”'


Of course Bill and Hillary created the conditions for those US corporations to move overseas AND the conditions for corporate tax and offshore shelters to be built. This is when FDR's Foreign Economic Zone policies went from being duty free tax savings to NO CORPORATE TAX ZONES.

This was the source of what would become US corporations not paying any taxes inside these US Foreign Economic Zones and would morph into corporate subsidies for development----- The SUCKING SOUND was not only our jobs----it was trillions in US corporate tax revenue.


General Interest
1993NAFTA signed into law


The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Clinton said he hoped the agreement would encourage other nations to work toward a broader world-trade pact.


NAFTA, a trade pact between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, eliminated virtually all tariffs and trade restrictions between the three nations. The passage of NAFTA was one of Clinton’s first major victories as the first Democratic president in 12 years–though the movement for free trade in North America had begun as a Republican initiative.


During its planning stages, NAFTA was heavily criticized by Reform Party presidential candidate Ross Perot, who argued that if NAFTA was passed, Americans would hear a “giant sucking sound” of American companies fleeing the United States for Mexico, where employees would work for less pay and without benefits. The pact, which took effect on January 1, 1994, created the world’s largest free-trade zone.

________________________________________


THE ATLANTIC article would have us believe those early 1900s Democrats fought to protect the US from monopoly. Indeed, many of the STRONGEST ANTI-TRUST MONOPOLY laws were passed----but look at who is given credit-----WOODROW WILSON is the US President installing the US FED-----and FDR was the one passing laws to allow global export of food grown in US which was of course what led to BIG AG---GLOBAL BIG AG. Candidates running as Democrats were speaking out two sides of mouth even in early 1990s.


'These include the declining fortunes of rural America as farmers struggle against agriculture conglomerates'.


'This time they held on, and for most of the next 100 years, through the administrations of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, and beyond, a prime purpose of the Democratic Party was to protect the worker, farmer, shopkeeper, and other independent citizens and innovators from concentrated power'.


Indeed, this is the period for the most monopoly anti-trust and heavy taxation of corporations. WILSON AND FDR also set the stage for a REAGAN/CLINTON with US FED and MONSANTO GLOBAL BIG AG.


We see here this 90% corporate tax rate lasted for about a decade------what we want to look at on these graphs is not only the extreme drop of corporate tax rates in Reagan era but also thinking about this being the time US corporations started heading overseas. Corporate tax collection for those having expanded overseas was strongest because the CORPORATE TAX SHELTER policies did not hit hard until CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.


This 90% tax rate was a result of tax policies from FDR and know what? Those ROBBER BARONS from ROARING 20s ---those few able to keep their wealth after the collapse---like FDR/JP MORGAN/ROCKEFELLER------created these monopoly and corporate tax laws to PROTECT THEIR MONOPOLIES.

Who warned of the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX while being right in the middle of this-----EISENHOWER so this EISENHOWER TAX RATES OF 90% ----laws passed during FDR was simply selling him as good for the 99% WE THE PEOPLE.

'Eisenhower Tax Rates of 90%
Nov 29th, 2017' ·


On more than one occasion, Bernie Sanders has mentioned that the top marginal tax rates under President Dwight D Eisenhower were 90%. This has led to some confusion, and some have erroneously claimed that Sanders himself intended to increase these tax rates to 90%. Furthermore, many incorrectly believe that this is flat 90% tax rate on everyone.


There has been much debate over the Eisenhower tax rates. The reason for this is simple: many Americans (especially on the right) consider the 1950’s to be a golden age of capitalism and small government. On the other hand, people on the right also clamor for lower taxes. The fact that the top marginal income tax rates on the wealthy were at 90% (compared to today’s 39%) comes as a surprise to these people.



In order to come to terms with this slight contradiction, right wing media and pundits have scrambled to create a number of arguments to avoid having to come to terms with the fact that the top earners once paid 90% and yet the economy still grew faster than it has in recent decades. Admitting this would completely undermine their argument that higher taxes on the 1% will slow the economy, or that current tax rates are somehow stifling job creation As a result, these pundits have argued that the 90% tax rate is a liberal myth.


No one actually paid that much


The most common response to the fact that Eisenhower’s tax rates were at an astonishing 90% is to claim that no one actually paid this 90% thanks to tax deductions. While there is truth to this, it ignores that fact that today the top earners still have access to tax deductions, and at a lower overall rate. A simple look at the top marginal effective tax rates makes it clear that the actual taxes paid at the top were indeed higher than they are today, even when accounting for deductions.


In attempt to distract readers from looking into this apples to apples comparison, right wing pundits compare the top marginal tax rates to overall effective tax rates. Furthermore, the fact that overall effective tax rates have remained fairly stable (even as the top marginal tax rates have dropped) proves that middle and lower income earners have taken a larger percentage of the tax burden as tax rates at the top have dropped.


Effects of the 90% Tax Rates


It’s clear that these tax rates coincide with faster GDP growth and better job creation than under current tax rates. That makes it difficult for detractors to argue that these top tax rates hurt the economy. Nevertheless, the economy is never perfect and detractors can point to any number of negative indicators during the 1950’s to make their point. That’s far, but it should be done in comparison to negative indicators under low tax rates periods as well. For example, the two greatest recessions in the last 100 years (the Great Depression and 2008 recession) both came during a period of relatively low taxes on the wealthy. These recessions are far worse than cherry-picked anomalies detractors pluck from the 50’s.
_________________________________________
THE ATLANTIC article makes us believe a NIXON AND EISENHOWER were strong anti-monopoly and indeed they did keep those corporations accountable but it was while NIXON WENT TO CHINA to begin the expansion of US corporations overseas to Foreign Economic Zones.  This was the floodgate to losing our strong US economy and tax base.  These policies would not hit until Clinton era and NAFTA but NIXON and his FIAT MONEY for the US FED was not holding corporations accountable but preparing them to EMPIRE-BUILD overseas.

We always have to look a few decades ahead to see what goals a current US President and Congress have----especially with monopoly and corporate taxation.

'It was a vision that even bridged the two parties: Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon both maintained strong antitrust operations during their administrations'.

'The most notorious U.S. commercial unilateral moment took place in 1971 when Nixon shocked the world by announcing—without any consultation with U.S. allies—that the convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold would be halted. Nixon also declared that the United States would impose a 10% imports surcharge – a tariff essentially – to ensure that “American products will not be at a disadvantage because of unfair exchange rates.”'

The article below coming from a global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE Columbia University is about as PROPAGANDA as any out there over these issues of corporate taxation and expansion and creating super-monopoly while pretending to be against them.  As with NIXON opening the door to Foreign Economic Zones just so free trade could indeed occur and to assure global corporate monopolies---so too is TRUMP.

We have shouted TRUMP is MOVING FORWARD Trans Pacific Trade Pact and US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones as hard as CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA but national media wants to pretend Trump is protecting AMERICA----his MADE IN AMERICA is about US corporations coming home and creating jobs when NONE OF THAT IS TRUE.  Bush was the first to create fake corporate tax law surrounding CORPORATE REPATRIATION OF TAXES ON FOREIGN EARNINGS----and TRUMP is simply doing more of the same.  What corporations are going to fill our US cities as Foreign Economic Zones?  Foreign corporations from overseas -----they will be the MADE IN NORTH AMERICA----and they will not pay ANY TAXES.  Meanwhile, those global multi-national corporations that used to be our US CORPORATIONS are busy filling AFRICAN FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----ARABIC FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----and no, they will not be paying corporate taxes.

So, this is what we are getting from ACADEMICS tied to global hedge fund US IVY LEAGUE universities which are determined 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE will not know what the goals of MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE will be....it is ridiculous.



Foreign Policy


Trump, China, and a “Nixon Trade Shock”?

Apr 03 , 2017
printTweet

• Vasilis Trigkas
  Onassis Visiting Scholar, Columbia University

At the recent G-20 summit, breaking from precedent, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin vetoed a declaration which affirmed the consequentiality of free trade, and sent shockwaves across the world. Since the advent of Donald J. Trump to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, economists and international strategists alike have spilled much ink theorizing the disruptive trade policies that the Trump administration will follow: a 45% unilateral tariff against China, the end of NAFTA and special subsidies to rust belt industries?
 
Donald Trump and his close circle of advisors have argued that the current U.S. trade deficit is unsustainable and it has mainly been created by the protectionist policies of U.S.’s major trade partners. Germany is enjoying a significant competitive advantage due to an “undervalued Euro” and China has long subsidized its industrial sectors distorting global prices and dumping its cheap products to the U.S. market, the president’s advisors declare. Consequently, Trump has warned that if the beneficiaries of U.S. market openness do not recalibrate their currencies and facilitate market access for American exporters, he will act unilaterally and even bypass the rules of the WTO.
 
Surprisingly, commercial unilateralism is not actually new in the post-WWII American economic diplomacy. The most notorious U.S. commercial unilateral moment took place in 1971 when Nixon shocked the world by announcing—without any consultation with U.S. allies—that the convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold would be halted. Nixon also declared that the United States would impose a 10% imports surcharge – a tariff essentially – to ensure that “American products will not be at a disadvantage because of unfair exchange rates.”
 
Nixon – a Machiavellian political genius – understood well the effect of his announcement to U.S. allies and the severe objections that Paris, Bonn, and Tokyo would raise to his neo-protectionist trade policies. In an effort to create a fait accompli Nixon summoned his treasury secretary, John Connally, and fourteen of his closest aides in Camp David, demanding that the issues discussed remain strictly confidential from all other institutions including the State Department, and even their own wives. He then announced his decision and shocked the world. “Nixon action echoed like thunder” the Chicago tribune reported on August 22nd, 1971. After Nixon’s public statement, the Bretton Woods system, the very system that the U.S. set in place in 1944 to promote post-WII economic recovery, was no more.
 
Could Donald Trump act in a similar way if his negotiations with Beijing fail at the forthcoming Xi-Trump meeting in Mar-a-Lago or the June 2017 China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue? Could Trump like Richard Nixon “echo like thunder” by unilaterally announcing a high tariff regime to balance U.S. trade deficit and break the WTO system? While some of Trump’s advisors would wave their heads affirmatively, the institutional and commercial leverage of the U.S today is much inferior from Nixon’s America. Unlike 1971, the United States in 2017 is bounded both by serious institutional commitments and power dynamics to act multilaterally and avoid “strategic surprise.”
 
GATT VS. WTO
 
In 1971 the global trade regime was overseen by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which was created in 1947 to protect the world from the perils of trade war. The memory of the mid-war mercantilism and its contribution to the outbreak of WWII was still vivid. Yet the GATT’s dispute settlement mechanism was “a court with no bailiff” and the enforcement of a ruling could be vetoed by a single country. The European Community in 1971 could have taken the United States to GATT’s dispute settlement but the U.S. could easily veto a ruling it disliked. In essence the “free trade” institutional framework was weak and could be bended at will by powerful nations.
 
However, since 1994 the GATT has been transformed into the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO has become the “backbone of the global commercial order” and its dispute settlement system is more immune to political coercion and cannot be vetoed by a single member. So successful has the WTO dispute settlement been in neutralizing protectionism, that a renowned professor of law named the WTO’s appellate body the “Supreme Court of Global Commercial Justice.” If the Trump administration unilaterally imposes a 45% tariff on imports from China, then Beijing could easily win the case in the WTO in less than 15 months.
 
Once China is armed with a favorable WTO dispute settlement ruling, then according to WTO rules it can retaliate (article 22) by targeting any sector of the U.S. economy it decides, and impose countermeasures equaling the damage the U.S. tariffs have incurred upon Chinese exporters. It needs no advanced strategic acuity to realize that Beijing strategists have already designed the potential retaliation in such a way as to maximize the political cost on members of Congress and the President himself. China for instance could target imports from critical swing states and the rust belt, undercutting the constituencies that could reelect Trump in 2020. The cost for the U.S. president would be his own reelection.
 
U.S. in a multipolar world
 
In 1971 Nixon faced serious economic pressure at home with enormous spending in the Vietnam War in an effort to deter the expansion of Soviet Communism in Asia. At the same time, the U.S. nuclear umbrella protected Western Europe and Japan (extended deterrence) from Soviet conventional superiority in Europe and the Far East. While the then German Chancellor Willy Brand and the French President George Pompidou were infuriated by U.S. monetary unilateralism, they eventually gave in to Washington’s demands and calibrated their exchange rates, understanding that the U.S carried the burden of European defense against a forceful Soviet Union.
 
As Berkley’s Barry Eichengreen has put it, Nixon in 1971 knew exactly how dependent the Europeans and Japan were on the U.S. security umbrella and “chose the former Texas governor John Connally to play bullyboy on the manicured fields of international finance.” When Nixon announced the 10% tariff, the outraged Europeans at first objected but then caved in as Connally demanded concessions “theatrically holding his ear and telling the Europeans that he heard no suggestions” at a finance ministers summit in September 1971. Nixon then announced that the new agreement with the Europeans was “the most significant monetary achievement in the history of the world.”
 
Nixon in 1971 also had complete authority over all institutions of executive economic policy including the Federal Reserve run by Arthur Burns a legendary Columbia professor and loyal republican. In 1971 Nixon strategically played domestic politics and geoeconomics and won a landslide reelection in 1972. Yet today the U.S. role in the world is much less singular than 35 years ago, Trump doesn’t control the FED and Mnuchin cannot repeat Connaly’s theatrical gestures toward the Europeans, let alone the Chinese. American GDP in 1971 was almost a quarter of the world’s while today (2017) is below 19% and falling. Most importantly today there is no Soviet Union ready to unleash its tank battalions and occupy Germany thus European dependency on the U.S. security umbrella has significantly weakened. Neither will the Chinese remain idle observers to U.S. economic unilateralism and Beijing looks determined to align with Europe and impose heavy cost on U.S. businesses.
 
Trump’s “mini” trade war and China’s Market Economy Status
 
The WTO’s collective trade security architecture and the less circumstantial U.S. role in global power dynamics leave the Trump administration with limited trade strategies and mostly with a sole option for operating within the system of the WTO yet, perhaps, on the boundaries of WTO’s legalism.
 
As Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics has put it during his lecture series at Columbia University, the Trump administration will take anti-dumping and countervailing duties to an all new level and play this card in its negotiations with China. The current WTO system, Stiglitz iterated, allows the United States to determine the price of Chinese products in dumping cases by arbitrarily choosing third markets as production cost anchors. This stems from the status of the Chinese economy as a “non market economy” and the enveloping WTO regulations. Even though China according to the 2001 WTO entry agreement was to be granted market economy status automatically after 15 years, the EU and the United States have denied to grant it and the issue is currently examined by the WTO’s dispute settlement body. Along with anti-dumping tariffs the U.S. could also impose countervailing duties targeting sectors of goods that China has illegally subsidized. In addition, the U.S. could strengthen CIFIUS and screen Chinese FDI to the U.S. aggressively – particularly in the tech sector.
 
As the WTO’s dispute settlement could take 15 months for a binding verdict, in the meantime China would also look for ways to retaliate and a limited tit-for-tat would take place yet the range of trade injuries that U.S. and China would inflict upon another would be seriously bounded by the WTO framework. China, Stiglitz argued, could call into question the bailout of the U.S. auto industry and state support to U.S. financial institutions. The ultimate outcome would be a “soft” trade war which would harm both economies yet it would not signify the end of globalization and free trade. A major trade war between U.S. and China would lead to what former Undersecretary of State Robert Hormats has described as “Mutually Assured Depression.” A full-fledged trade war is unlikely.
 
Trump and Xi at Mar-a-Lago and the future of the global trade order
 
After Trump’s taking the telephone call from the Taiwanese leader and the shock that this incurred in Beijing, I had argued that Trump emulated Nixon’s “madman strategy” in an effort to win trade concessions from Beijing by showing his willingness to renegotiate issues that China took for granted. China froze all contacts with the U.S., and it was only when Trump affirmed his commitment to one China in his first discussion with Xi over the phone, that the U.S. Secretary of State was invited to visit Beijing. Pundits argue that Trump’s pledge over the one China policy won him some trade concessions or at least a promise from China on righting the trade balance.
 
While such an optimistic assessment of Xi responding to Trump’s Taiwan game with trade concessions seems unrealistic (Chinese usually avoid concessions when core interests are at stake), it is, however, possible that China could be willing to support more market openness and also invest significantly in the United States. In the high temple of Globalization – the World Economic Forum in Davos – Xi declared that “no country can emerge victorious from a trade war.” Xi iterated that China “will expand market access for foreign investors, build high-standard pilot free trade zones, strengthen protection of property rights, and level the playing field to make China’s market more transparent and better regulated.”
 
At Mar-a-Lago, Trump and his team should work with Xi and design a framework for trade and investment reciprocity. The U.S. automobile industry, the U.S. airplane industry, the U.S. services sector could be great beneficiaries from Xi’s promise in Davos to expand market access and build high standard free trade zones. Yet, reasonable concerns over the “Made in China 2025 plan” which supports import substitution and raises barriers against foreign investors should seriously be addressed.
 
In 2009 the U.S. and China agreed to put strategic and economic interests together and kicked-off their 1st Strategic and Economic dialogue realizing that the interaction between the world’s two largest economies is consequential for peace and prosperity. At Mar-a-Lago Trump and Xi will have an opportunity to have high level discussions and prepare the strategic agenda for the S&ED that will take place later in 2017. They must realize that the United States and China are not beneficiaries but fiduciaries of the global system and that their partnership is essential to secure Nuclear Non-Proliferation, deal with pandemics, and alleviate resource scarcity and global warming.
 
Nixon was famous for two things: First for his strategic novelty of an opening to China and second for being the only U.S. president to resign from office. Liberals in Washington hope that Trump will follow Nixon’s political destiny and depart from office indicted by scandals and corruption. Perhaps they should truly hope that the president will look to Nixon’s policy toward China and solidify Sino-U.S. partnership.
__________________________________________
We already know there will be no benefit in DEVELOPMENT OR JOBS with Trump's repatriation  tax policy.


We will take next week to look at all of these corporate tax issues in detail.  Just remember, the first thing OBAMA AND CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS did in 2010 was give a $1 trillion dollar tax break the rich that right after a devastating 2008 economic crash.

Trump's Corporate Tax Repatriation Plan May Have a Fatal Flaw


Although nearly $2.5 trillion being held overseas by U.S. multinationals, repatriating this cash may not lead to job creation.


Sean Williams
(TMFUltraLong)
Dec 24, 2016 at 7:26AM


In a little more than three weeks, career businessman Donald Trump will ascend to the highest office in the U.S. and become the 45th president of the United States. Needless to say, he has a tough and busy road ahead of him.


Trump plans to tackle tax reform


Among the actions Trump would like to check off his laundry list of goals is tax reform at the individual and corporate level. During his campaign, Trump vowed to lower U.S. corporate tax rates to 15% from 35%. Aside from the United Arab Emirates and Puerto Rico, the U.S. has the third-highest marginal corporate tax rate in the world, and Trump's belief is that lowering the corporate tax rate will encourage investment in the U.S. from foreign businesses and give U.S. companies more capital to reinvest in their businesses and hire more workers.


One final overhaul of the corporate tax structure involves creating a tax holiday to allow U.S. multinationals to repatriate profits that are currently being held in foreign markets. At last check, U.S. companies were holding nearly $2.5 trillion overseas. The idea is that if Trump offers a 10% flat repatriation rate on overseas cash, then U.S. multinationals may jump at the chance to bring that money back into the U.S. and potentially use that cash to create more jobs, boosting U.S. GDP.


Unfortunately, there could be a fatal flaw built into Trump's corporate tax repatriation plan.


In a little more than three weeks, career businessman Donald Trump will ascend to the highest office in the U.S. and become the 45th president of the United States. Needless to say, he has a tough and busy road ahead of him.


Trump plans to tackle tax reform


Among the actions Trump would like to check off his laundry list of goals is tax reform at the individual and corporate level. During his campaign, Trump vowed to lower U.S. corporate tax rates to 15% from 35%. Aside from the United Arab Emirates and Puerto Rico, the U.S. has the third-highest marginal corporate tax rate in the world, and Trump's belief is that lowering the corporate tax rate will encourage investment in the U.S. from foreign businesses and give U.S. companies more capital to reinvest in their businesses and hire more workers.
One final overhaul of the corporate tax structure involves creating a tax holiday to allow U.S. multinationals to repatriate profits that are currently being held in foreign markets. At last check, U.S. companies were holding nearly $2.5 trillion overseas. The idea is that if Trump offers a 10% flat repatriation rate on overseas cash, then U.S. multinationals may jump at the chance to bring that money back into the U.S. and potentially use that cash to create more jobs, boosting U.S. GDP.



Unfortunately, there could be a fatal flaw built into Trump's corporate tax repatriation plan.

Here's what corporate America wants Trump to focus onIf Trump wants to have a real impact on corporate America, the CNBC Global CFO Council survey would suggest that he focus on reforming the corporate tax rate first and save the repatriation of overseas profits for another time.


According to the survey, not one CFO said that lowering the corporate tax rate to 15% would hurt their business, while 95% said it would help. Comparatively, just 49% of big business CFOs believe repatriating overseas cash would help their business. Repealing the Affordable Care Act nearly had the same positive impact rating among CFOs as creating a tax holiday for overseas cash.


The big question, of course, is what sort of impact corporate tax reform would have on America, its investors, and the workforce. To that end, no one is exactly sure. The Tax Foundation comprehensively examined Trump's tax plan in September (after he released his revised plan) and found that while the plan itself could lead to an estimated $3.9 trillion decline in federal revenue between 2016 and 2025, it would also boost GDP by 8.2%. Of that 8.2%, half -- I repeat, half -- is expected to come from lowering the corporate tax rate to 15%. By that token, my assumption is that we'd probably see higher corporate profits, higher margins, and potentially more M&A activity. However, it's unclear what this would mean for the jobs outlook, because M&A, as noted before, can work against job creation, even if it works wonders for profit margins.


Chances are that as Trump inches closer to taking office, we'll see the president-elect and business leaders engage in more frequent discussions about what's needed to drive both business growth and jobs growth. Whether this leads to a middle-ground deal that satisfies both U.S. businesses and the Trump administration remains to be seen.


The $6,318 tax bonus millions of Americans completely overlook


Taxes can be confusing and downright miserable. But a handful of "tax tricks" could help millions of Americans save thousands of dollars. That's free money you could be leaving on the table. For example: the IRS believes that a full 20% of eligible Americans miss out on a tax break worth up

We will continue to discuss financial public policy next week seguing from wage policies to tax policies  by looking at TRUMP and Clinton neo-liberal REPATRIATION of trillions of offshore taxes by multi-national corporations and pretending there is benefit for 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE by throwing some BONES of bonuses that will last only a few years.

We will discuss REPATRIATION TAX POLICY next week but we simply need to know today that what looks like MORE MONEY for US workers is simply shifting a few million dollars from the BONANZA of trillions of dollars created by global corporations NOT PAYING TAXES.  What these policies also do is make our US workers FEEL they are earning more money without receiving wage increases.  All of this is sold as REAGAN TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS ---reduced corporate taxes sent that money to WORKERS------well, NOT REALLY.

REMEMBER, after the ROBBER BARON few decades of ROARING 20s brought down the economy from massive frauds FDR clawed back all that massive corporate and banking fraud by raising corporate taxes to 90%.  This is what rebuilt our DOMESTIC US ECONOMY filled with free market small and regional businesses while allowing US corporations to earn millions in profits.  This was what OBAMA was supposed to do to provide justice from CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ROBBER BARON frauds and instead Obama and Clinton neo-liberals gave now global corporations not only that one time trillion dollar tax cut just like Trump----but made global corporate welfare queens of all global corporations.

So, Trump is still ignoring the failure of justice in clawing back those tens of trillions of dollars in corporate and Wall Street frauds-----and pretending these tax cuts are stimulating our domestic economy....

THIS IS A SMOKE AND MIRROR WAGE INCREASE ISSUE LEAVING US WORKERS WITH EVER-FALLING SALARIES AND TAKE-HOME PAY.

WASHINGTON SECRETS250 companies offering 'Trump bonuses,' up 525%
by Paul Bedard |
Jan 25, 2018, 11:17 AM

With Home Depot and Starbucks moving to offer employees bonuses as a result of President Trump’s tax reform package, the total number of firms rewarding workers has reached 250, a jump of 525 percent in just two weeks.
The companies have credited the tax changes for plans to offer bonuses of up to $3,000, increases in retirement plans, wage hikes and even adoption benefits.



The tax watchdog group Americans for Tax Reform, headed by Grover Norquist, has been keeping the most updated list of companies offering benefits and today told Secrets that it had crossed the 250 mark.
What’s more, many more companies are offering employee benefits but are just now passing along their information to ATR’s list keeper, communications chief John Kartch, who is requesting them to his email address, JKartch@atr.org



Some examples he just added:

• Camp Construction Services of Houston, offering $500 tax reform bonuses. In a note to employees, CEO Roger C. Camp wrote, “Because of the reduction in corporate taxes we, as will all businesses, benefit from this tax cut. We believe that YOU are the reason for our success. And now that we will be giving less of our hard earned income to the federal government, we can share some of it with you. Please look for a $500 ‘tax cut’ bonus in your next payroll run.”

• Dynamic Fastener of Raytown, Mo., is paying employees $1,000 and hiring more employees.
• Iron Horse Energy Services Inc. of Eolia, Missouri, is providing new bonuses. In a news report, one employee said, “Thank you Mr Trump for being a businessman.”

• Rod’s Harvest Foods of St. Ignatius, Montana,” is giving pay raises and bonuses up to $500. Chief Rod Arlint told workers, “We are happy to share with our employees the anticipated tax saving for 2018 realized by the tax reform bill recently passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Trump. We are excited about the benefits it will provide for our country’s economy, our store, and our employees. As a result of the tax savings expected in 2018, we will be passing this savings on to our employees. We will be raising wages 3-5 percent and entry wage to $11 an hour (non-student). Also, please accept this bonus as a gesture of appreciation for your hard work and loyalty to Rod's Harvest Foods. You are our most valuable resource!”

______________________________________________

CORPORATE REPATRIATION TAXES IN TRILLIONS.

Just as CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA allowed the US FED to play with FAKE INFLATION/INTEREST RATES claiming to spur the economy all our 99% wealth tied to COLA increases like SS and Medicare----retirements and pensions----military benefits-----lost a great deal of annual income these few decades.............so too are our US workers continually sold on FAKE wage increases the far-right wing global 1% has no intentions of giving.

As this article states there has never been any economic benefit from repatriation tax policy------not to local economies, workers, government coffers and just as with the BUSH ERA TAX CUTS these policies are written to COST TAX REVENUE after 10 years.

The goals of MOVING FORWARD US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES IS TO BRING FOREIGN CORPORATIONS TO US CITIES TO OPERATE HERE AS THEY DO OVERSEAS. THE US NO LONGER HAS DOMESTIC US CORPORATIONS ======THE FEW THAT ARE LEFT ARE LOADED WITH CORPORATE BOND DEBT READY TO IMPLODE INTO BANKRUPTCY.



We know that repatriation doesn’t work

The US tried something similar in 2004 with a “repatriation holiday” that gave companies the option of bringing foreign profits back to the US at a discounted tax rate. The 2004 holiday was different from the repatriation included in the Republican tax bill in a number of respects. It offered an even lower rate, and it was optional, rather than mandatory.

But the core premise — of giving companies with profits parked overseas a big discount on their tax rate — is the same. And the track record of the 2004 holiday is not exactly encouraging.

The 2004 law was written to require companies to use the funds they brought back to finance research and development, wage increases, and other productive or socially valuable endeavors. “The funds had to be used for ‘permitted investments,’ which included hiring US workers, US investment, research and development, and certain acquisitions,” the economists Dhammika Dharmapala, Fritz Foley, and Kristin Forbes explained in a paper evaluating the law's impact. “Certain uses, such as executive compensation, dividends, and stock redemptions, would disqualify repatriations from the holiday.”

The problem is that money is fungible. So if Apple had, for instance, already planned to hire 10,000 workers in the US at a total cost of $1 billion and spend $2 billion on R&D in the US in the year 2005, it could tell the government — accurately! — that it was repatriating $3 billion to hire and invest in the US. But that would free up $3 billion already in the budget for other purposes, including supposedly banned purposes like executive pay hikes, higher dividends, and stock buybacks.

And indeed, that’s the kind of thing that happened for the most part. “A $1 increase in repatriations was associated with an increase of almost $1 in payouts to shareholders,” Dharmapala, Foley, and Forbes conclude. Other analyses, like this one by Harvard Law School’s Thomas Brennan, are more optimistic, but even Brennan concludes that the largest corporations only used 12 percent of the money they brought back on research and development or new investment. The rest went to buying up other companies and reducing debt (both allowed under the law) and paying back shareholders through stock buybacks and dividends (not allowed).

However you look at it, a quite small share of the money went to hiring new people or making new investments or conducting new research.

And this is intuitive if you think about it for a second. If Apple sees a profitable research or investment opportunity in the US in 2017, it’s not going to think to itself, “Let’s not do that thing that makes us money, because all our cash is stored overseas.” Apple will just borrow money at today’s rock-bottom interest rates and fund the investment that way. It’s a little weird for a company with $261 billion in cash, most of it overseas or otherwise tax-sheltered, to borrow money, but with its three-year interest rates at only 1.8 percent, borrowing is only slightly more costly than using money it already has in the bank.

So it’s not really a surprise that study after study, from the Congressional Research Service and the Senate Government Affairs Committee, has found the 2004 repatriation holiday was a bust.
_________________________________________

Look for a LOT of FAKE DATA pretending this repatriation helped anyone but top tier global corporate executives.

'but even Brennan concludes that the largest corporations only used 12 percent of the money they brought back on research and development or new investment'.


Business Day


One-Time Bonuses and Perks Muscle Out Pay Raises for Workers


By PATRICIA COHENMAY 25, 2015

Yacht-size bonuses for Wall Street big shots and employee-of-the-month plaques for supermarket standouts are nothing new, but companies’ continued efforts to keep costs down have pushed employers to increasingly turn to one-off bonuses and nonmonetary rewards at the expense of annual pay raises.


“There is a quiet revolution in compensation,” said Ken Abosch, a partner at Aon Hewitt, a global human resources company. “There are not many things in the world of compensation that are all that radical, but this is a drastic shift.”


According to Aon Hewitt’s annual survey on salaried employees’ compensation, the share of payroll budgets devoted to straight salary increases sank to a low of 1.8 percent in the depths of the recession. It dropped to 4.3 percent in 2001, from a high of 10 percent in 1981. It has rebounded modestly since the recession, but still only rose to 2.9 percent in 2014, the survey of 1,064 organizations found. (These figures are not adjusted for inflation.)


Aon Hewitt did not even start tracking short-term rewards and bonuses — known as variable compensation — until 1988, when they accounted for an average of 3.9 percent of payrolls. Ten years later, that share had more than doubled to 8 percent. Last year, it hit a record 12.7 percent.


Of course, companies have long rewarded top executives and rainmakers with bountiful bonuses — and that continues to be true — but compensation experts say the prevalence and types of one-time rewards and perks have spread further down the ranks than ever before. Although pay-for-performance rewards for top achievers and signing bonuses to attract talent account for most of the one-shots, they also include companywide amenities and targeted perks, like lunches out with the boss or Visa gift cards.


“It affects the C.E.O. all the way down to the guy who sweeps the factory floor,” Mr. Abosch said. Ninety-one percent of the companies surveyed have at least one broad-based reward program, up from 78 percent in 2005 and 47 percent in 1991.


Perhaps more surprisingly, the trend now extends to sectors like higher education and agriculture, as well as to the government, which historically resist performance-based rewards because they often rely on subjective judgments.


With the economic recovery nearing its sixth anniversary, stubbornly sluggish wage growth has become a central issue, eroding people’s faith in the American dream, shaping the economic messages of potential presidential candidates and weighing on the Federal Reserve Bank’s decision of whether to raise interest rates from their near-zero levels.


Over the past 12 months, real average hourly earnings have increased by just 2.2 percent. Since 1979, most of the gains in pay have gone to those at the top of the salary pyramid while, except for brief periods in the 1980s and late 1990s, those in the middle and at the bottom have been losing ground.


Several developments help account for wage stagnation: the economy’s globalized and technological nature, which has placed more bargaining power in the hands of employers, and long periods of relatively high unemployment, compounded by waves of layoffs and excessive numbers of discouraged and underemployed workers, leaving some employees fearful to ask for more.


The shift in compensation that favors one-shot-only rewards over incremental increases in salary that compound over time also appears to be playing a significant role.


“This is something that has not gotten as much attention in conversation about flat wages,” said Linda Barrington, executive director of the Institute for Compensation Studies in the Industrial and Labor Relations School at Cornell University.

The shift to short-term rewards took off after the economy went into a nose-dive in 2001, she said.

“Then in the Great Recession, it really skyrocketed,” she said. “It’s really hard to cut wages and salaries, so the more compensation you can give in other forms, the more nimble you can be in a recession.”


Some experts expect the trend to continue even as the unemployment rate drops and the labor market tightens.

Employers like one-shots precisely because they are temporary. They save money over the long run because they don’t lock in raises, giving managers greater control over budgets, particularly during downturns.


“It’s so much easier to not give a bonus than to cut someone’s pay,” Ms. Barrington said.

At Squaremouth, a software company in St. Petersburg, Fla., most employees received an annual raise of 0.8 percent for 2015, just enough to match last year’s rise in consumer prices. But staff members have been treated to other sweeteners like new Apple Watches — preordered with choice of size and color — a $200 “beer” bonus, birthdays off and the installation of a “hangover couch” for midday snoozes.


Chris Harvey, the chief executive of Squaremouth, which produces a travel insurance website, said he took his cues from the tech industry, which pioneered creative incentives and amenities for workers like Ping-Pong tables and on-site dry cleaning. “We wanted to find innovative ways to keep people happy and keep people surprised,” Mr. Harvey said.


Alternative forms of compensation can be popular among workers, too. Some like the idea that good work is recognized and rewarded. But while across-the-board perks like free food or lunchtime yoga can make the workplace more pleasant, others support performance-based bonuses.


“I personally love suddenly finding an unexpectedly large sum added to a month’s pay,” said Michele Heisler, an associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, who can receive a yearly bonus based on quality-of-care ratings of her work as a physician at Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System. Such pay-for-performance policies are steadily becoming the norm among both private insurers and the government.


“It is like getting a surprise gift,” Ms. Heisler said. “It probably wouldn’t seem nearly as thrilling if it were just spread out across salary payments each month.”


While a few more dollars in each paycheck may lack that Christmas-morning feeling, a raise is the gift that keeps on giving. The benefits of wage increases are compounded each year, with every future raise building on the back of the one before it. In addition, salaries are the foundation of a range of other benefits, like Social Security and pensions.


Mr. Abosch says that the biggest bang for the buck comes when workers can see a direct return for specific efforts. In the days when bosses handed out holiday hams or turkeys, he said, “employees would walk to the top of the building and drop them off the side to show their displeasure.” Their message: cash preferred.


To Stephanie R. Thomas, a research associate at the Institute for Compensation Studies, says some industries and jobs are more suited than others to rewards. Merit bonuses (a sales commission, for example) work well when employees have direct control over their performance and results can be objectively measured, she said. But “it’s not right for all employees and all organizations,” Ms. Thomas said, referring to professions like teaching.


The big question now, said Kerry Chou, a compensation specialist at Worldatwork, a nonprofit membership organization of human resources professionals, is not so much whether variable compensation will continue, but whether wage gains are permanently stuck in a low gear.

“Are we just dealing with a cautionary economy where ultimately budgets get back to where they were before the recession, or do we have a new normal now?” Mr. Chou asked. “The jury is still out.”
__________________________________________
What PERFORMANCE BONUSES did as the last article states is use VERY SUBJECTIVE goals to create a VARIABLE COMPENSATION killing what was uniform wages for all employees.  We see here in Baltimore how these policies are aimed at killing higher wage earning workers with new workers at lower pay scale having learned to be used to these variable wages.

'is not so much whether variable compensation will continue, but whether wage gains are permanently stuck in a low gear'.

Of course those bonuses are going to disappear but for the next decade or two it will be used to fuel those patronage 5% players while US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS AND GLOBAL FACTORY BUILDING occurs if we keep MOVING FORWARD.

Reducing pension benefits----which we shout 99% of WE THE PEOPLE will not receive anyway-----but it is the VARIABILITY factor in compensation that US wage laws for last century standardized just so CRONYISM---NEPOTISM did not have one employee earning more simply because of connections.

Careers & Workplace

Why 'You're Getting a Bonus' Is Actually Horrible News
Joel Sartore—Getty Images/National Geographic RF
By Martha C. White October 16, 2014

So your boss just said, instead of a raise this year, you’ll be eligible for a bonus. Great, right?

Not so fast. Companies today are increasingly turning to bonuses instead of raises, and while it might seem like pretty much the same thing, there are some big potential drawbacks for workers.

According to HR consulting firm Aon Hewitt’s annual Salary Increase Survey, more than 90% of companies now have what’s called, in HR jargon, “variable pay,” a category that can include signing bonuses, awards for individual or team performance, profit-sharing and the like. Nearly 13% of companies’ payroll budget, on average, is going to variable pay this year. This is a significant increase from Aon Hewitt’s pre-recession data and the trend is expected not only to continue, but to grow larger.

In the meantime, companies are still doling out raises with a relative eyedropper; last year, the average was below three percent for white-collar professional workers — a little better than the puny 1.8% it hit in 2009, but not by much.

“Based on historical trends and based on the indicators that we see — both economic and HR indicators — we think the level of spending on salaries will continue to be flat for the foreseeable future, and the level of spending on variable pay will continue to rise,” says Ken Abosch, compensation, strategy and market development leader at Aon Hewitt.

While bonuses have always been a part of the pay structure for certain jobs, like those in sales, Abosch says this trend is across the board. “We’re seeing it in pretty much every sector, including higher education and not-for-profits,” he says. So if you haven’t had your raise replaced with a bonus yet, that could be coming.

For businesses, there are a few advantages to giving bonuses instead of raises in today’s lackluster recovery. The biggest is that it’s not a permanent commitment. They dole out the money once, and they only have to repeat it if certain performance benchmarks — benchmarks which can and do change regularly — are met. Since bonuses and similar performance incentives are often viewed by workers as a sort of add-on perk, they can also be used as a “carrot” to motivate workers, and they can give workers a perception that they’re more in control of how much they earn.

That perception isn’t really based in reality, though: Performance metrics often include company-wide targets. You might be the best help-desk associate or accountant in the building, but if somebody in the corner office makes a bad decision, the company’s bottom line could tank and you can kiss that bonus goodbye.

That’s only one of the problems that switching raises with bonuses has for workers. “It impacts pensions and retirements,” Abosch says. Certain benefits calculations are based on your salary, so even if you’re getting the money in the form of a bonus, it’s not counting towards these important ancillary calculations. And if you lose that job, your unemployment benefits are calculated based on — you guessed it — your salary.

That’s not all. If you’re looking to take out a mortgage, buy a car or obtain any other kind of financing, the lender is going to look at how much you make. Depending on their underwriting practices, bonuses may or may not get the same weight as a fixed salary. The result? You could wind up paying higher interest on your loan, or even be denied outright.

_____________________________________________
When we read that Foreign Economic Zones overseas are GETTING THEIR ACT TOGETHER with slave wages and horrible worker dormitories being made to look like US student dorm rooms-----THAT IS A GREAT BIG LIE.  As we showed yesterday with STOCK OPTIONS AS WAGES-----so too are they posting workers receiving these ANNUAL BONUSES when these workers do NOT receive these bonuses.  We are being made to think global labor pool conditions are getting better to fool US workers into feeling MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES  won't be so bad.

When we look at social media we see the usual global 1% ----those 5% players black, white, and brown citizens READY TO BRING MADE IN CHINA TO US -----and call it MADE IN US.

We see AL SHARPTON---that global banking 5 % freemason player galore always wearing that NIKE HAT----NIKE LOGO everywhere.  Who is NIKE?  Michael Jordan-----what is NIKE?  One of the world's worst global sweat shop factories.  So, yes, our few US citizens temporarily allowed to become MERELY RICH----are those FLAT EARTH BRING ON US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES complete with all those third world enslaving conditions---living, working, eating industrial food----working for only and BED AND A MEAL.

AL SHARPTON AS CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA SAYS HE'S READY TO BE THAT GLOBAL LABOR POOL BROKER-----

'where workers get paid $6 a day'.

We are sure all those 5% black, white, and brown player PEEPS will be in those US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE global factories receiving $3-6 a day.

Beyonce's fashion line fights sweatshops accusations


by Ivana Kottasova @ivanakottasova May 17, 2016: 11:41 AM ET


Beyonce's fashion line Ivy Park is fighting back over reports its clothes are produced in sweatshop-like conditions.

A report in a British newspaper has claimed the athletic wear is made in factories in Sri Lanka, where workers get paid $6 a day.


The article in The Sun on Sunday was based on interviews with the factory workers. It painted a grim image of the poor conditions the laborers have to endure, including cramped living quarters, low salary, and no sick pay.


Ivy Park said in a statement emailed to CNNMoney that it has a "rigorous ethical trading program."

"We are proud of our sustained efforts in terms of factory inspections and audits, and our teams worldwide work very closely with our suppliers and their factories to ensure compliance," the brand said.
"We expect our suppliers to meet our code of conduct and we support them in achieving these requirements," the statement added.


The company did not respond to requests for details about its code of conduct and did not address the specific allegations made in the report.


Here is BEYONCE'S business partner ---SIR WILLIAM GREEN--------doing just as we stated------these global corporations crashing and burning as temporary businesses deliberately shaking all employees of any wealth assets they can accumulate.
These are the GLOBAL BANKING 1% STARS temporarily made MERELY RICH in order to sell to 99% of US citizens you can win if you are that 5% freemason/Greek player. PENSIONERS LOSE OUT -----ROMNEY'S CORPORATE RAIDING morphs to global business even worse ---if that is possible.


All of this is these few decades of DEREGULATION OF LABOR LAWS ----this being WAGE UNIFORMITY LAWS.  We always discuss TAX UNIFORMITY as critical to US free market and labor rights for 99% of WE THE PEOPLE----here is our wage uniformity laws being attacked.


Topshop billionaire vs. 20,000 pensioners

by Alanna Petroff   @AlannaPetroff April 26, 2016: 1:32 PM ET

Retail billionaire Sir Philip Green is feeling the heat in the U.K.The Topshop entrepreneur is the former owner of department store BHS, which stumbled into bankruptcy this week, putting 10,000 jobs at risk and leaving about 20,000 retirees and employees facing losses on their pensions.


Now Green, who sold BHS just over a year ago, is facing calls to use his fortune to help guarantee the pensions. He and his wife are reportedly worth about $6 billion.


BHS pension funds don't have enough cash to pay members what they're owed in retirement. And the company can't meet the £571 million ($833 million) pension deficit.



As a result, the U.K. Pension Protection Fund -- which acts like an insurance policy for pension programs -- has stepped in to handle payments. But this means BHS staff and former employees who have yet to start receiving their pensions will only get 90% of what they were promised.


Current retirees will also get less in future years as annual increases are capped.
British lawmakers are furious, and have accused Green of leaving his former employees in the lurch. They've launched an inquiry, worried that other people contributing to company pensions will have to pay an even greater premium to the Pension Protection Fund to support BHS pensioners.


"It appears that [he] has extracted hundreds of millions of pounds from the business and walked away," said MP Angela Eagle in a parliamentary debate Monday. Fellow lawmaker Richard Fuller called Green's actions the "unacceptable face of capitalism."


Green did not respond to CNNMoney's requests for comment.
Officials are also looking into what went wrong. The U.K. Pensions Regulator has launched an investigation into whether Green, and the investors who took BHS off his hands, deliberately avoided paying enough funds into the pension plans.


If the regulator finds wrongdoing, it could force Green and the most recent BHS owners to pay up.


Green owned BHS for 15 years and oversaw years of deep losses at the company. He then sold it last year to a firm called Retail Acquisitions, reportedly for £1.
____________________________________________
While global banking 1% CLINTON/OBAMA tout recent MINIMUM WAGE increases in US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones as a WIN FOR US WORKERS----most of national media tied to claims of higher wages are tied to these BONUSES AND STOCK OPTIONS.  Remember, these are considered WAGES----so if wages are growing faster in the aggregate-----it mostly means these TEMPORARY BONES-----that will be disappearing very quickly as too those FAKE MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES.


“Wages are growing faster in the aggregate than you think,” says Mary Daly, director of research at the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank.

Here is OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% FREEMASON CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR-----selling the idea that things are getting better for US workers knowing the goals are bringing US workers down to third world Asian sweatshop levels.

Who wrote the public policy tying US workers to PENSIONS?  THE US FED.  What is killing US workers' ability to fight MOVING FORWARD?  People not wanting to lose their pensions.  Who pushed pensions as good for workers?  INTERNATIONAL LABOR UNIONS-----Who is pretending all this FAKE WAGE policy is really helping US workers? 

5% to the 1% FAKE LABOR LEADER----TRUMKA.

“Wages are growing faster in the aggregate than you think,” says Mary Daly, director of research at the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank.

All of this is designed to keep 99% of WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown from fighting for our American quality of life ----always a carrot to make us think things will get better and not the reality of how bad MOVING FORWARD will become.

Economy


US wages are rising, maybe faster than you thinkProgress watch


Median weekly earnings jumped 4.2 percent in the past 12 months, the fastest gain since 2007. And demographic trends suggest the economy’s ‘slice of pie’ for workers could keep growing.

• 
  Laurent Belsie
  Staff writer | @lbelsie

August 30, 2017 --Here’s a Labor Day quiz: Whose pay rose at the fastest rate in the past year – lawyers or truckers? PhDs or workers who didn’t graduate from high school? The top 10 percent of earners or the bottom 10 percent?


If you opted for the answers that may seem surprising – the second ones in each of those pairings – then congratulations! You’re especially attuned to a recent turn in the US economy. In percentage terms, the workers in category "b" outdid those in category "a" in the past 12 months. It’s a sign that after eight years of an unusually sluggish recovery, continued growth and very low unemployment are beginning to deliver pay gains across the board.


This turnaround does not make up for the years in which better skilled, higher educated, and wealthier workers enjoyed most of the gains after the Great Recession. And it’s far too recent to have done much to alleviate the growing inequality between the rich and the poor. Nevertheless, it does suggest that the current expansion is finally buoying the incomes of a broad swath of working Americans, from waitresses to union members.


“Wages are growing faster in the aggregate than you think,” says Mary Daly, director of research at the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank.


“Unions have had a good year,” Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO labor federation, told reporters at a breakfast hosted by The Christian Science Monitor on Wednesday. “We raised wages for our members higher than we have for a while.”


Signs of stronger wage growth are popping up everywhere. This month, Elise Gould of the union-backed Economic Policy Institute found that average wages for workers without a high school diploma grew 1.9 percent in the 12 months ending in June; for PhDs, they grew only 0.3 percent. Ditto for those at the bottom 10 percent of the income ladder: 5 percent wage growth, versus 2.9 percent for those at the top 10 percent.


Similarly, truckers saw the biggest pay raises – 5.7 percent – in the past year ending in August, in a report from the job website Glassdoor this week. And it wasn’t just truckers. Among the top 10 with the biggest pay increases: baristas (also up 5.7 percent), bank tellers (4.9 percent), cooks (4.7 percent), and cashiers (3.7 percent).


The biggest losers? Lawyers, whose average pay was $92,000, saw a 3 percent decline, because too many law school graduates were chasing too few jobs.


The legal profession is an exception in today’s labor market. In most job categories, there’s a shortage of workers, which is driving up wages. Seven in 10 construction companies report they’re having trouble finding craft workers, especially carpenters, bricklayers, electricians, concrete workers, and plumbers, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Associated General Contractors of America. As a result, half of the firms have increased base pay for workers; 20 percent have boosted employee benefits.
When Missouri’s conservative legislature voted earlier this year to overrule cities that had passed their own minimum wage laws, more than 100 St. Louis companies vowed to keep paying the city’s $10 an hour minimum wage, instead of rolling back to the state’s $7.70 per hour minimum.


While the role of minimum wage laws in raising pay is open to debate – one recent study of Seattle’s minimum-wage hikes found they pushed workers’ earnings down because employers cut workers’ hours – most everyone agrees that the economy’s long expansion is finally forcing employers to pay more to attract workers.


Median weekly earnings rose 4.2 percent over the 12 months ending in July, the fastest rise since the prerecession peak of 2007, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. And the actual picture may be even better than that, argues Ms. Daly of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank.


That’s because two factors are dragging down the reported averages, according to her research. First, the strong economy is luring back lower-skilled people who were sidelined by the Great Recession. But they’re often entering jobs that pay low wages, which pulls down the average.


It’s a kind of happy paradox: The stronger the economy, the more it pulls in workers who lower the overall wage.


The second factor is what Daly calls the “silver tsunami” – the surge in baby boomer retirement. As this huge cohort of highly paid workers get replaced by lesser-paid Millennials, the average gets pulled down. But from the individual worker’s perspective, pay is typically going up. The growth rate for full-time workers who didn’t get laid off is already back to 2007 levels, she points out.


There are some troubling signs. Workers at the low end of the wage spectrum are only now beginning to recover from the Great Recession. So it will take some time for them to reap the benefits of the recovery.


“There is some improvement,” says Mr. Trumka, the labor leader. “But wages have lagged so far behind over 40 years, it's going to take a lot more than a year or two to get them back to where they need to be.”


‘The new normal will be tight labor market’Another problem is that the more employers raise wages, the more it cuts into company profits. The only time that doesn’t happen is when their workers become more productive. And growth in labor productivity has been especially sluggish in this recovery. The last seven years have seen the weakest growth of any seven-year period on record, points out Gad Levanon, chief economist for North America at The Conference Board, in a recent analysis.

Lower corporate profits can rattle Wall Street. Higher labor costs without productivity growth can lead to inflation, which often precedes a recession. But those dangers do not appear immediate, according to Mr. Levanon. Corporate profits, while declining, are still above average.


“We are already in a tight labor market, and in the next 15 years baby boomers will continue to retire in large numbers,” he writes. “The new normal will be tight labor market. Workers are likely to get a bigger slice of the pie.”
___________________________________________

Here is YAHOO FAKE NEWS CNN-------telling US WE THE PEOPLE we are back to full employment with growing wages and YELLOW BRICK ROADS ahead.

"Wages have been the puzzling part of the story. Wage growth has not picked up," said Williams. Typically when the economy is at full employment, wages grow about 3% to 3.5% a year. Right now, wages are only growing 2.5%'.

Why is the US FED pretending wages are growing -----employment is FULL when 99% of WE THE PEOPLE know all that is not true?  The US FED has ARTIFICIALLY MANIPULATED inflation and interest rates these few decades.  US RULE OF LAW requires this private corporation to work in 99% of citizens' interest by making economic policy that does just what today's US FED is claiming..........keeping US economy a full employment, wages allowing consumer spending.

This is why with all the DEREGULATION OF WAGES ----of all the TEMPORARY rotation of part-time, temporary workers making hiring look strong when people are simply being laid off and moved to the next temporary job=====AND our volunteer workers/continuous JOB TRAINING 'STUDENTS' are counted as EMPLOYED.  As well, global labor pool 99% are counted in FULLY EMPLOYED----while not counted as FIRED AND UNEMPLOYED.

US RULE OF LAW would not allow the US FED to manipulate inflation and interest rate if it harmed US employment and consumption. 

THE US FED MUST RAISE FED INTEREST RATE BECAUSE THAT US TREASURY AND STATE MUNICIPAL BOND FRAUD IS READY TO BURST THE BOND BUBBLE. 

This is why national media, the US FED, and our global Wall Street 'ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT FAKE 5% LABOR AND JUSTICE PLAYERS pretend something good is happening with US workplace wages and employment.

So, yes the US FED MUST raise its interest rates because the US Treasury and corporate bond market is so fraudulently LEVERAGED it is ready to collapse........................to do this global banking 1% must PRETEND US employment and consumption is strong

'Fed, Perplexed by Low Inflation, Is Still Ready to Raise Rates -...
www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/us/politics/fed-inflation-rates.html

Dec 5, 2017 ... The Federal Reserve is poised to raise its benchmark interest rate next week, at its final meeting of the year, as the economy continues to gain strength ... Robert S. Kaplan, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas: Whether we're at full employment, we'll know in hindsight, but I believe we're going to ... '





Fed Focus

The U.S. is 'basically at full employment'


by Heather Long   @byHeatherLong May 23, 2016: 1:31 PM ET


160,000 jobs added in April

America's job crisis is over, says one of the nation's top economists."We're basically at full employment," said San Francisco Federal Reserve President John Williams on Monday. "That's very good news."


Williams believes the U.S. economy is "back on track," and the Fed deserves a lot of the credit for the dramatic turnaround. (President Obama too has been trying to take a "victory lap" on the economy).


Unlike presidential candidates Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, Williams sees a lot to be happy about. He points to "good" growth of about 2% a year, and an unemployment rate that went from 10% at the worst of the Great Recession back down to just 5% now.


America has been adding roughly 200,000 new jobs a month for about two years. It's a rapid pace of job growth not seen since the boom days of the late 1990s. The hiring is so strong that even some people who had given up looking for work have jumpstarted their search again.


American voters worry about economy


So why are American voters so gloomy about the U.S. economy? It's by far the top issue on the campaign trail. Not only are voters worried about the situation right now, but over half believe the next generation will be worse off financially.


Williams says he understands the frustration on Main Street.
"The fact that income inequality is rising is real," he says, but he doesn't think the Fed can do much more about that. It's a problem Congress and the White House are better positioned to handle.


The other key issue is that middle class American salaries aren't growing much.


"Wages have been the puzzling part of the story. Wage growth has not picked up," said Williams. Typically when the economy is at full employment, wages grow about 3% to 3.5% a year. Right now, wages are only growing 2.5%.


Americans are likely to get a raise soon, predicts Williams, but he acknowledges there are lingering problems. An alarming number of Americans also work part-time jobs but they want full-time work. Those part-time jobs typically come with lower wages and few, if any, benefits.



June rate hike very real possibility

With the economy making good progress, there's about a 50% chance the Fed will raise rates in June. In his comments Monday at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York, Williams stressed that a June rate hike is a real possibility. He said two or three rate increases in 2016 is "still about right."

Williams isn't currently a member of the Fed committee that gets to set interest rates, so he won't be voting at the next meeting in June.


The Fed has two goals: to get the economy to full employment and to hold inflation steady around 2%. Williams believes the Fed has done its job on employment and that inflation will get back to target in the next year or two.


Williams noted that the Brexit vote in the U.K. on June 23 -- a mere 8 days after the Fed's June meeting -- is a concern, but the probability of the U.K. leaving Europe would have to get higher to really rattle markets.
_______________________________________


If other US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zone have hyper-continuous job training and community college that is simply APPRENTICESHIP K-CAREER----then all US 99% citizens will APPEAR to constantly be EMPLOYED-----because job training and being a student removes that citizen from the stat of being UNEMPLOYED.  This is the only reason US employment stats have shown employment in US rising.

If we continue with RACE TO THE TOP apprenticeship PRE-K TO CAREER ending high school and making it 4 year job training 'college'------then we have a continuous FULLY EMPLOYED WORKER POLICY even when these workers are receiving nothing as money/wages/cash.

THIS IS THE GOAL OF MOVING FORWARD US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----AND BALTIMORE IS LEADING THE PACK.

AND our 5% to the 1% global Wall Street Baltimore Development 'labor and justice' organizations are getting what used to be real Federal funding for public K-university as continuous job training apprenticeship patronage-----temporarily. A tremendous amount of our hundreds of billions in Federal public education tied to CONTINUOUS JOB TRAINING.


Employee Training: Paid or Unpaid?


By Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. on January 7, 2014
Posted in Off the Clock


Virtually all employers are aware that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), they are required to compensate employees for all hours worked.

What is not as clear, however, is whether the time an employee spends at training programs, lectures, meetings, and other similar activities should be considered hours worked. As a result, clients often ask whether they are required to compensate employees for time spent in such training activities.



The short answer to this question is that an employee’s time spent in training sessions should be considered compensable “working time” unless the following four factors are met:



Attendance is outside of the employee’s regular working hours;


Attendance is voluntary;


The training is not directly related to the employee’s job; and


The employee does not perform any productive work during the training.


This “four-factor test,” however, is not as straightforward as it may seem. Indeed, as demonstrated by the below “Common Employer Inquiries and Responses,” these factors contain many nuances that may make it difficult for an employer to easily determine whether training time should be compensable.



Common Employer Inquiries and Responses

i. How should an employer determine whether attendance at a training session is outside “regular working hours?”

By default, some employers interpret the term “regular working hours” to mean the, standard hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. As a result, these employers automatically compensate all employees for any training that takes place during these hours, even for those who do not work this standard schedule. Such an interpretation, however, may result in significant overpayments to your employees.


The term “regular working hours” refers to the particular shift worked by an individual employee.

Thus, if an employee regularly works a shift from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., an employer would not be required to compensate her for attending a training session from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. (assuming all three other factors were satisfied), since the training session would be outside of her specific regular working hours.


ii. How can an employer ensure that attendance will be considered “voluntary”?

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) classifies training as “voluntary” if (1) the employer does not require the employee to attend the training; and (2) the employee is not led to believe that her employment would be adversely affected if she does not attend the training. If an employer takes an adverse action against the employee as a result of her failure to attend the training, attendance clearly is not voluntary and the employee must be compensated.


Therefore, an employer should explicitly convey to its employees that any unpaid training is not required and ensure that its supervisors and managers do not give any indication that non-attendance will result in an adverse employment action against the non-attending employee.


iii. When is a training considered “directly related to” an employee’s job?

Of all the factors set forth in the four-factor test, the question of whether training is directly related to an employee’s job generates the most employer uncertainty.


In short, training is directly related to an employee’s job if it is designed to make her more effective in her position or to teach her something new she needs to know to perform her current job duties.


Conversely, training is not directly related to an employee’s job when its primary focus is to prepare an employee for advancement or train her for another position, even if it results in incidental improvement to an employee’s ability to perform her regular duties. Furthermore, training is not considered to be directly related to an employee’s job when an employer’s non-mandatory training program is of general applicability and corresponds to courses offered by independent, bona fide institutions of learning.


Questions from employers often arise as to whether non-mandatory training offered by the employer to facilitate attainment or renewal of a license, permit or certification is directly related to an employee’s job.


For example, a furniture distributor may offer non-mandatory training sessions to its delivery drivers so that they can obtain their required commercial driver’s license. Although the training would arguably make an employee more effective in her position as a driver, the program is of general applicability and corresponds to courses offered by other entities in accordance with the requirements of the state licensing division. Moreover, while the employee’s receipt of the license is mandatory, the employer’s training program is non-mandatory, as it is simply one means of achieving the required documentation.



Consequently, as long as the training offered by the employer corresponds to the requirements outlined by the state licensing division, an employee’s attendance at the employer-sponsored program would not be compensable.

iv. What type of work performed during training constitutes “productive work”?

The DOL defines “productive work” as any work that an employer is able to use for business purposes.
Therefore, so long as an employer does not permit an employee to actually perform work that could benefit it during the training session (as opposed to simply learning to perform such work), an employee would not be considered to have performed productive work during the training.


Conclusion

Although the FLSA creates a presumption in favor of compensation for training sessions, there are many instances in which an employer is not required to pay employees for such time. As a result, employers should consistently evaluate their policies and practices regarding their training sessions to ensure they are not compensating employees for time when there is no obligation to do so.
__________________________________________

'Another very important role of the medieval guilds  – either merchant or craftsmen – was the enforcement of monopolies'.

We want to be sure 99% of WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens know to where MOVING FORWARD is going-----and our US labor union FAKE 5% LEADERS are morphing to these MEDIEVAL LABOR STRUCTURES as silently as any global banking 1% SECRET SOCIETY----Medieval trade guilds were always a hierarchy of global 1% MERCHANT heading a guild assigning a MASTER almost always that 2% family member-----and as we see below all 99% of citizens trying to get their child into a trade guild would pay all kinds of money to apprentice that child----9 years old or much younger.

Obama and Clinton neo-liberals under RACE TO THE TOP and higher education privatization dismantled our strong Federal public K-university funding to create this kind of pre-K to career apprenticeship where workers do indeed live, eat, are schooled on global corporate campuses and our US labor unions morphing into OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% TRADE GUILDS-----there were no WINNERS in the 99% under these workplace conditions.  Keep in mind SMART CITIES MOVING FORWARD will even eliminate most of these trades and the BEST OF THE BEST IN THE WORLD global labor pool 99% will be those fighting to be in US Foreign Economic Zone trade guilds.......

ONCE THE STRONGEST PUBLIC EDUCATION I AM MAN FREEDOM, LIBERTY, JUSTICE, PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS IN WORLD HISTORY.


This is why our US labor unions did not fight US anti-trust monopolies soaring during Clinton 1990s-----this medieval system is nothing BUT GLOBAL CORPORATE AND TRADE GUILD MONOPOLY.

What we are seeing here in Baltimore is a system of 5% freemason/Greeks being a transitory labor broker---------of course this is only TEMPORARY

'Contrary to legends, most medieval guilds had no Grandmaster, nor an inner circle (see Freemasons)'.


Medieval Guilds and Craftsmen

by Dimitris Romeo Havlidis | Feb 9, 2017 |


From manorialism to medieval guilds, traders and cities


Manorialism, amongst other things, was the result of the inability of high lords (like kings and dukes) to directly control their holdings. The agrarian manorialism system was an effective way to manage the land and its people by creating self-sufficient units (manors) controlled by one person (the Lord of the Manor), who would have a direct relationship with his lord (Knight, Baron, Earl, Duke etc). However, as the world emerged slowly from the dark ages and trade became once again a major economic force, towns were chartered as locations where people could exchange goods. Due to this influx of raw materials from the manors and all over the world, towns became manufacturing centres which all kinds of artisans and craftsmen called home. These skilled men came together and formed associations to protect their trade and their rights, and thus, medieval guilds enter the stage.

Merchant and craftsmen guilds


Merchant guilds were organizations of merchants. They were involved in long-distance commerce and local wholesale trade; they may also have been retail sellers of commodities in their home cities where they possessed rights to set up shop. The largest and most influential merchant guilds participated in international commerce and politics, and established colonies in foreign cities. In many cases, they evolved into, or became inextricably intertwined with, the governments of their home towns.


Craft guilds were organized for particular trades. Members of these guilds typically owned and operated small businesses or family workshops within the city. Craft guilds operated in many sectors of the economy. Guilds of victuallers bought agricultural commodities, converted them to consumables, and sold finished foodstuffs; examples include bakers, brewers, and butchers. Guilds of manufacturers made durable goods and, when profitable, exported them from their towns to consumers in distant markets; examples include makers of textiles, military equipment, and metal ware. Guilds of a third type sold skills and services; examples include clerks, teamsters, and entertainers.

The role of medieval guilds

Medieval guilds were established in order to make sure that the rights of the craftsmen they represented were protected. They did that by organising their members and representing them as a group, both in matters regarding the city’s administration and in their relations with other guilds and merchants. In addition, guilds set rules with regard to working hours, wages and working conditions, which their members were supposed to abide by.


Another very important role of the medieval guilds  – either merchant or craftsmen – was the enforcement of monopolies. Guilds allowed only their members the right to exercise a craft within the confines of a city. Anyone who wished to practice the craft had to be vetted and accepted into the guild before doing so. This ensured that the quality of work was regulated, but also that competition was kept in check. Medieval guilds were also responsible for any legal disputes between their members, and it was quite common for guild meetings to also have legal proceedings in their agenda.


Finally, in some cases, medieval guilds operated as the middleman when large contracts were placed by the city, or when competitions for a contract were announced by a king or noble. Contract competitions became more common with the rise of organised armies and militia, and particularly during times of conflict. A good example of this would have been the weavers or blacksmith’s guilds of a city receiving a contract to product several thousand pieces of clothing or armour to equip a regiment of an army.


Medieval guilds education and ranks

In our previous article regarding medieval education in Europe, we mentioned that guilds played an important role in the education of craftsmen. As grammar schools and, later, universities provided education for the elite of the medieval world, guilds were the driving force behind the education of the rising city-dwelling middle class.


Apprentices

Cities were inhabited by men free of feudal responsibilities (freemen) which meant that, for the first time, common men had the opportunity through their own faculties to be in control of their own fates and the fate of their children. If a family had enough money, they were able to ask a master craftsman to take on their child as an apprentice. The family would have to pay the master enough money to house, feed and clothe the child for 9 years. During these nine years, the child would do the master’s bidding and shadow him in his workshop, slowly learning about the craft. Apprentices had no easy life and in most cases had to do the most mind-numbing and filthy work – only those truly committed would manage to accumulate enough knowledge to reach the next rank of the guild and become Journeymen.

Journeymen

After several years of being an apprentice (and eating, in most cases, the scraps off the table,) the master of the workshop would anoint the pupil as a Journeyman of the guild. At this point, he officially became a member of the guild and he would have had limited access to the guilds resources and – most importantly – a fair wage. As a journeyman, he would continue working under his previous master. or any other master of his trade. During this time, if he so wished, he could begin work on his masterpiece. A masterpiece is an item of exquisite craftsmanship, detail and artistry, or a major innovation in the field of his craft. Once a journeyman had completed a masterpiece, he could submit it to the guild for approval. If he was successful, the Journeyman would then receive the rank of Master.


Master

As a Master of the guild, the craftsman was now a fully fledged member. He enjoyed the benefits and, of course, he then held the right to found his own workshop, taking on his own apprentices. Very rarely, two masters would continue working together, forming a partnership. This kind of practice gave rise to the later corporations. Very commonly, children (natural or adopted) would follow their fathers, first apprenticing under them and then later working on alongside them. These kinds of family businesses are encountered nowadays as well, and are commonly seen in names like “John Cobbler & Sons”. In fact, this strong hereditary tradition and such monopolies would have a very important role in the dissolution of guilds in the 18th century.


Contrary to legends, most medieval guilds had no Grandmaster, nor an inner circle (see Freemasons). Most guilds worked in a very democratic way, with each full member holding equal vote to decisions. More formalised hierarchies began to make their appearance in guilds only much later on, when guilds became larger organizations which spanned many cities and formed complex networks.


Fees and benefits“The term guild probably derives from the Anglo-Saxon root ‘geld’ which meant ‘to pay, contribute.’ The noun form of ‘geld’ meant an association of persons contributing money for some common purpose. The root also meant ‘to sacrifice, worship.’ The dual definitions probably reflected guilds’ origins as both secular and religious organizations.”


– Gary Richardson, University of California, Irvine


Guilds played a very important role in the city’s politics. It is very common to see Merchant Guilds take the role of founders, mayors and exchequers for cities. Each guild member was obligated to pay a fee in support of the guild’s agenda, members and maintenance. In return, the guild used this money to issue loans to its members, take care of the families of sick or deceased members, and maintain their assets.


Not every guild had a guild house, but those which did used it as a place for their members to discuss issues, and also to sell and exhibit their goods. In the case of merchant guilds or bigger, multi-city-spanning medieval guilds, it was not uncommon for the guild houses to also have lodgings for travelling members.


Most City Charters required that guilds contributed to the city in a meaningful way. These contributions could have been, for example, the construction or furnishing of public buildings, public works, the maintenance of almshouses or the organisation of public events. Remnants of these kind of contributions can still be found across cities in Europe.

___________________________________________


Here is just such a job training structure heading towards being that MEDIEVAL TRADE GUILD===Obama and Clinton neo-liberals killed all those Federal student loan structures once allowing all families and their children to simply request that Federal student loan and go to any 4 year public university for $10,000 including room and board with graduates finding good paying jobs shortly after graduating----that was last century's left social progressive LOCKE PUBLIC EDUCATION.


What we see here is simply a STAGE of breaking down our US labor union structures always sold as working for our US workers benefit-----morphing to being partners of global 1% corporations----THOSE OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE ------with a goal of becoming those TRADE GUILDS.


So, US employment stats have always considered STUDENTS as employed-------just as apprenticeship pre-K to career will make it look as though all US citizens are employed---until SMART CITIES eliminates most trades and 99% WE THE PEOPLE are ignored in both education and employment.

Our global 1% Baltimore Development 'labor and justice' organizations FAKE 5% ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT POL AND PLAYERS know these are the goals of MOVING FORWARD. No wage or money for US workers.

SEIU is SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION INTERNATIONAL JUST AS AFL-CIO KNOWS

'The effort is backed by $70,000 in grant funding, including $50,000 from the Maryland Department of Labor's Apprenticeship Innovation Fund and another $20,000 from the Health Career Advancement Program, a national labor organization'.


UNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION STANDARDS FOR ALL FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES TAKING US TO THIRD WORLD LABOR STRUCTURES

'The Healthcare Career Advancement Program (H-CAP) is a national labor/management organization that promotes innovation and quality in healthcare career education. Its board includes Service Employees International Union (SEIU) locals and healthcare employers across all sectors of healthcare'.

Labor union, UMMC Midtown launch hospital apprenticeship program

By Morgan Eichensehr  –  Reporter, Baltimore Business Journal

Oct 19, 2017, 2:16pm A labor union representing health care workers is working with the University of Maryland Medical Center Midtown Campus to develop an apprenticeship program to train entry-level hospital employees to fill in-demand patient care jobs.


The effort is backed by $70,000 in grant funding, including $50,000 from the Maryland Department of Labor's Apprenticeship Innovation Fund and another $20,000 from the Health Career Advancement Program, a national labor organization.


The local 1199SEIU chapter and UMMC Midtown hope to help about 15 entry-level workers in jobs like food service, transportation and janitorial work obtain their Certified Nursing Assistant certifications. They will also help further train three to five current CNAs to become certified as patient care technicians.


People might expect a mechanic or a craftsman to be training an apprentice. But the concept of apprenticeships is relatively new in industries like health care, said Tamara Robinson, who heads up the local 1199 SEIU's Training and Employment Fund. The goal is to provide "a career ladder or pathway" for workers to receive on-the-job training advance in their careers and help fill job openings in high-demand industries. Maryland, in particular, has been working to introduce and expand apprenticeship models in industries like cybersecurity and health care.


"When you think of apprenticeship training, many people think of workers in hard hats, not in scrubs," Donald E. Ray, vice president of operations at UMMC Midtown, said in a statement. "But that is changing. Today, hospitals across the country are taking advantage of innovative apprenticeship programs to enhance their recruitment and retention plans in an industry facing staff shortages."


The new program will be a U.S. Department of Labor Registered Apprenticeship, which provides a model of job preparation that combines paid work training with related instruction to progressively increase workers' skill levels and wages. A joint committee comprised of leaders from both organizations is working to determine selection criteria for participants and hope to have an application process ready by December. The apprenticeship will be registered and fully enrolled by March next year.

More certified nursing assistants are always needed, said Hannah Asiem, a clinical nurse educator at UMMC Midtown, and the hospital is excited to be able working with 1199SEIU to help train and promote people from within its existing ranks.



"We really value our employees and this is just another way to show them how much we do, and encourage them to advance their careers," said Lisa Trusty, a human resources manager at the hospital.


Robinson said the partners hope to continue the program into coming years at Midtown and to potentially expand — provided there is more funding — apprenticeships to other jobs and locations in the state.


Renee Brown, an 1199 SEIU member and a transportation worker at UMMC Midtown, said she is glad the organizations are providing a "golden opportunity" for hospital staff who work in lower level positions to show how capable and hardworking they can be.

_________________________________________

'Alongside attorney J. Wyndal Gordon and the Reverend C.D. Witherspoon, the mother and sisters of the woman left in the cold, spoke to members of the media'.

We shared a few weeks ago this story about failures with UMMS midtown in ordinary US standards of care and life.  What we are seeing is that creation of TIERED GLOBAL HEALTH SYSTEM CARE STRUCTURES-----and yes, this midtown UMMS campus is mostly global 99% labor pool employees being the earliest to fall into that OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE TRADE GUILD pre-K to career apprenticeship structure.  This one incident is simply the tip of an iceberg as MOVING FORWARD expand these MEDIEVAL TRADE GUILD structures to all Baltimore global corporate campuses.  

No one knows these goals of MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES better than our 5 % to the 1% FREEMASON/GREEK FAKE CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS.  As always---the solution is a NON-SOLUTION---we will work to pass laws to prevent this and that -----


NEVER MENTIONING THE GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM PUBLIC POLICY IN LABOR AND WORKPLACE MOVING FORWARD IN US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES KILLING ANY AND ALL US 99% CIVIL AND LABOR RIGHTS.

Our 99% WE THE PEOPLE both US and global labor pool thinking these policies are going to harm that other population group ------LET'S JUST STOP MOVING FORWARD.




Family of UMMC patient left out in the cold, speaks out
by Brandi Proctor
Thursday, January 18th 2018

BALTIMORE (WBFF)-- The family of the woman left in the cold by employees of the University of Maryland Medical Center held a press conference Thursday.


Alongside attorney J. Wyndal Gordon and the Reverend C.D. Witherspoon, the mother and sisters of the woman left in the cold, spoke to members of the media.


The mother of the woman, identified by her first name, Rebecca, said her daughter has insurance and a family that loves her.

She said she saw the video of her daughter on social media the night that she was left in the cold. Rebecca's mother said when she called the hospital she was transferred to multiple employees, all of whom gave her an email address for media relations. She contacted Baltimore Police who went to the hospital and found out that her daughter had been taken to a Code Blue Shelter by taxi cab.




Rebecca's twin sister spoke tearfully about her sister's mental health struggles, and seeing the video that shocked the family.


Reverend C.D. Witherspoon says he plans to push for legislation to prevent similar situations from happening in the future.


Here is a statment released by the University of Maryland Medical Center Midtown campus on January 18th:


"The University of Maryland Medical Center is committed to keeping the public informed about actions taken subsequent to the widely publicized January 9 post-discharge of one of our patients from the Midtown campus."



"To reiterate, we take full responsibility for the failure that occurred in demonstrating compassion to this young woman in the post-discharge process after delivering medical care," said Mohan Suntha, MD, President and Chief Executive Officer of the University of Maryland Medical Center. "Last week, we pledged to fully investigate the incident and take appropriate action. Over the last week, a cross-departmental team across both UMMC campuses has completed a thorough and unsparing internal review of the circumstances that led to this incident, and is committed to being transparent to the greatest extent possible, given what is allowable by law regarding patient information and personnel matters."



"Our internal investigation identified a breakdown in coordination of several touchpoints within the continuum of care after the point of medical discharge to ensure the social needs of the patient were met."
UMMC resulting actions steps include:



- Added expertise from medical safety experts at critical decision points around complex discharges.
- Conducted staff education and training on updated post-discharge procedures.



- Implemented personnel action to hold individuals accountable for the incident. Actions extend across multiple layers of the organization and were guided by the findings uncovered during our review.



- Engaged outside experts to conduct an independent audit to ensure we have identified and remediated any gaps in our processes. This is in addition to external review by the Maryland Office of Health Care Quality.



"I'm confident the decisions and actions we have made in response to this incident are in keeping with the high standards of excellence to which we have always held ourselves, and that our actions address the root causes of last week's breakdown," Suntha said. "I am also committed to helping advance important conversations among community partners and hospital leaders across this city, state and nation on how we collectively care for our most vulnerable populations."

"We understand and respect the significant public interest in learning more specifics on the outcome of our comprehensive review. However, it's important to understand we are restricted by law from addressing the confidential details of patient care and personnel actions. Therefore, we are not able to comment on the veracity of information being presented as fact by those outside of the organization. We will continue to focus our efforts on systemic change in collaboration with others who will work alongside us."

When we read in national media that Chinese workers are seeing wages rise ---from that $2 a day to $6 a day we see what is fake news and bogus bookkeeping selling the rise of wages in Chinese Foreign Economic Zones with global corporate factories. What we really see is the expansion of all that is CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA neo-liberal policies having goals of pretending workers are getting paid when in fact they are working for nothing.

'So, instead of our paying you in cash, we will agree to pay in you in stock options. Our stock will provide you with far more monetary value than the paltry fee we would pay you for your services and by working with us, you will gain entry into the lucrative Chinese market and highly profitable work for Chinese companies will follow'.

Where these global banking stock option scams in US are growing-----the goal is of course for these COMPLEX FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS to crash and burn. When we allow stock options for wages----we allow global banking 1% to change what has been monetary wages for thousands of years------cash vs stock options will expand to eliminate CASH as wages.

We do not understand why global 1% from Asia, Arabia et al would feel the need to adopt this ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE all FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES operating the same globally knowing the global 1% of OLD WORLD EUROPE will lie, cheat, and steal in all partnerships.



China
China Stock Option Scams


Foreign individuals and companies should not accept promises of stock options or stock in a Chinese company in place of employment compensation or payment for services.


By Dan Harris
Oct 3, 2016 at 5:47 PM

The China lawyers at my firm have been experiencing an increase in companies and individuals contacting us after having been offered stock in a Chinese company as an alternative to cash. Mainland Chinese companies offering company stock is a scam that cannot work for foreigners.


This is how this stock scam typically goes down. The Chinese company — usually in the tech sector — desperately needs the expensive skills or knowledge of a foreign person or entity, but either lacks the funds to pay or the desire to do so. So, instead of paying hard cash, the Chinese company will offer founders’ stock or employee stock options in their Chinese entity and talk about its plans to go public (“do an IPO”) and of how profitable that will be for the stock recipients.


Unfortunately, this is all an illusion for the simple reason that foreigners cannot own stock in a Chinese domestic company not already listed on a stock market. So any such option or stock transfer is void from the start. Foreigners are not permitted to be shareholders of Chinese domestic companies, nor does China recognize the concept of nominee shareholders.



Even though the offering of stock in Chinese companies is a fraud, we are still seeing many foreign individuals and companies taken in by such offers, most commonly in the fintech sector. The Chinese company will use the “standard” Silicon Valley approach of offering a stock option package as a key benefit in the employment package. By offering stock options, the Chinese company can pay less and secure greater loyalty, while still exploiting the skills and extracting the knowledge of foreign individuals in developing an innovative software or other high tech product.


This exploitation period typically lasts one to three years, at which point the Chinese company tells the foreign individuals, “Sorry, the Chinese government has now informed us that we cannot issue you any of our stock.” Sometimes, to prolong the scam, the Chinese company will propose elaborate nominee schemes illegal under Chinese law. These proposals often convince the foreign employees to waste another year or two with the Chinese company. But, in the end, the result is always the same. The Chinese company defaults on its promise to provide the foreigners with stock in the company. Since the founders’ stock/stock option scheme was void from the start, there is nothing the foreigners can do to enforce their rights in China, since they never had any rights.


A similar scam is often perpetrated on foreign companies with technical services of great value to the Chinese company. The Chinese company will win over such a company with the following type of pitch:


We really need your services, but we are growing so fast these days that we simply do not have the free cash to pay you in cash for that. Since we are growing so fast, it is certain we will soon do an IPO on the Shanghai stock exchange. So, instead of our paying you in cash, we will agree to pay in you in stock options. Our stock will provide you with far more monetary value than the paltry fee we would pay you for your services and by working with us, you will gain entry into the lucrative Chinese market and highly profitable work for Chinese companies will follow.

This scam results in the same result as the employee stock option scam. Just as with employee stock options, a foreign entity cannot own stock in a Chinese domestic entity, so the option is void from the start. Also, the private Chinese entity never does an IPO on the Shanghai market, so the whole concept was an illusion. The foreign company virtually never figures out the scam until after it has already transferred its service or valuable information to the Chinese entity.


There are a couple of elegant variants Chinese entities use to implement the Chinese stock scam. In the rare case where a private Chinese company actually completes an IPO, the listing is on a foreign exchange — usually either on a Hong Kong or United States or London exchange, where due to Chinese law requirements, the actual listing entity is not the Chinese company for which stock options or stock were purportedly given. Instead, the listing entity is some form of subsidiary or other affiliate of the Chinese company. This means the holder of the scam option or stock in the Chinese company can be told: “Your stock option (or stock) is with the Chinese parent; you do not have an option with the affiliate actually listed. Sorry.”



Private companies in China are effectively locked out of China’s domestic IPO market. On the other hand, such companies have become attractive targets for private equity financing. But the story here is the same. The private equity financing occurs in China, resulting in a big payout to existing shareholders of the Chinese entity. The foreign stock option holder looks for an equivalent benefit. The Chinese entity then responds: this was a private equity deal, not an IPO. You did not own any stock at the time of the private financing, so you are not entitled to any benefit.



Foreign individuals and companies should not accept promises of stock options or stock in a Chinese company in place of employment compensation or payment for services. Chinese companies that offer payment in stock are either ignorant of the requirements of Chinese law or intentionally committing fraud. Either way, foreign individuals and companies should refuse to work with any Chinese company that makes this sort of stock offer. We have seen many of these deals and none have worked out well.
______________________________________________

And here are those Chinese 5% players thinking they are WINNERS-----senior management as in US being tied to stock options making the BLING DISAPPEAR.

Remember, these stock option complex financial instruments are COMPLEX because hidden in a long explanation is that only the TOP TIER global investors and global 1% corporate executives KEEP THE BLING in these stock option deals where 99% of WE THE PEOPLE including those dastardly 5% to the 1% players will soon lose it all.

This is what they call the growing Chinese middle-class in MOVING FORWARD a few decades from now if  we keep allowing global banking 1% to install SMART CITIES policies------they will not need to PRETEND TO MAKE A MIDDLE-CLASS----Libertarian Marxism brings extreme wealth extreme poverty to all 99% of US and global citizens.

Economics and Policy from China's Newspapers


China Evergrande launches employee stock options


Board of directors grant nearly 8,000 senior management employees a total of 744 million shares


By Asia Times staff October 10, 2017 10:05 AM (UTC+8)

After three years, China Evergrande has once again implemented a share option incentive plan to inspire its employees, Caixin reported.



According to the announcement on October 6, the Board of Directors of China Evergrande decided to grant nearly 8,000 senior management employees a total of 744 million shares.



People who received the incentive accounted for around 7.8% of total employees in the company. The exercise price of the incentive was HK$30.2 (US$3.87), which is equivalent to the closing price on 6 October.
This is the third time that China Evergrande has announced an options incentive since its listing.


In May 2010 and October 2014, China Evergrande granted 713 million shares and 5.30 billion shares, respectively, to its employees. The two exercise prices were HK$2.4 and HK$3.05 — far below the latest option incentive.


Shares of China Evergrande have constantly increased this year. The latest closing price was up 500% compared to the beginning of the year, pushing China Evergrande Chairman Xu Jiayin to the top of Forbes China list several times, the report added.
___________________________________________

Below we see during Bush era SUPREME COURT rules stock options are WAGES.  This is a ruling over TAXATION.  All these Supreme Court rulings these few decades on stock options as WAGES is not a GOOD 99% PUBLIC INTEREST stance, it is a global 1% banking stance the goal of moving Western nation citizens away from the idea of receiving CASH as wages.  We are already seeing other methods of PAYING SALARY replacing cash------that will be BED AND A MEAL-------which is of course GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS SOCIALISM------where we eat, sleep, are schooled, and never leave that global corporate campus......no WAGES OR CASH needed.

As stock options become filled with fraud and corruption getting to the point of workers not wanting to be tied to them-----as with dysfunctional and defunded public schools and public transit--------the courts and global banking pols and players are building the case for global corporations that CASH AS WAGES are no longer happening in FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.



 Schachter v. CitiGroup: The Other Side of the Supreme Court’s Decision
Author(s): Alisa Baker , Richard Levine


Synopsis: In Schachter the California Supreme Court expressly holds, for the first time, that restricted stock and other forms of deferred equity compensation are "wages" for purposes of the California Labor Code. This means that employees can expect to be protected as to both attorneys' fees and arbitration fees in employment law disputes based on equity compensation.


In November, the California Supreme Court issued an unusually significant decision in the area employment compensation. Schachter v. CitiGroup, Inc. (PDF, 107KB) (S161385), Nov. 2, 2009, concerns Citigroup’s restricted stock incentive compensation plan, pursuant to which employees may elect to receive a portion of annual earned compensation in the form of restricted company stock that vests over time. The restricted stock plan provides, however, that if a participating employee resigns, he or she forfeits rights to any unvested restricted stock (as well as to the cash the employee would have received had he or she not opted for restricted shares instead).


Schachter had opted to receive restricted shares in lieu of cash during certain years. The restricted shares were awarded at a 25% discount below market price at the time of award. Schachter quit and therefore lost the value of not-yet-vested restricted stock. He claimed the restricted stock plan violated two sections of the California Labor Code, sec. 201 (which requires unpaid earned wages to be paid upon discharge), and sec. 221 (which prohibits an employer from “collecting or receiving from an employee any part of wages theretofore paid . . .”



JAPAN is of course a PUPPET nation to global banking 1%----and all Foreign Economic Zones these few decades are installing these far-right wing neo-liberal/Liberatarian MARXIST policies.


Stock option income counts as salary: Supreme Court

• Jan 26, 2005

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that proceeds from exercising stock options should be regarded as a part of salary and thus subject to a higher tax rate than for one-time income.
The top court’s first ruling on the matter rejected a suit filed by a former president of the Japan unit of U.S. chip-maker Applied Materials Inc.




Tuesday’s decision in favor of tax authorities upheld an earlier ruling by the Tokyo High Court and will probably affect affect similar lawsuits across Japan. There are 102 such suits pending, according to the National Tax Agency.


“Proceeds from exercising (stock options) are compensation for labor and services rendered and constitute salary income,” said Justice Tokiyasu Fujita, who presided over the case at the court’s No. 3 Petty Bench.


In the lawsuit, Keisuke Yawata, former president of the Japanese unit of Applied Materials Inc., was challenging a move by tax authorities to impose a higher tax applicable to pretax salary income on the 360 million yen in income generated by his sale of stocks after exercising stock options between 1996 and 1997.

He declared the amount as nonpretax income in the relevant tax years, thus rendering them eligible for a lower tax rate. However, tax authorities rejected this and imposed additional taxes of 79 million yen.


The Tokyo District Court ruled in August 2003 that the stock option income should be treated as nonpretax income subject to a lower tax because proceeds from such transactions are determined by the contingent factor of stock prices, which fluctuate.


But the Tokyo High Court overturned the ruling in February and rejected Yawata’s request, saying provision of stock options to employees is intended to motivate them to continue working at the company and constitutes compensation for labor and services.


Stock options refer to the rights to buy shares at predetermined prices, which allow the holder to generate a profit by selling shares provided that the market price is higher than the predetermined level.


The Commercial Code was revised in 1997 to allow companies to give employees stock options. Some preferential tax treatment is provided on income gained from such options under the code if certain conditions are met.

But most cases subject to the lawsuits over taxation concern stock options given to employees of the Japanese units of foreign companies that are outside the scope of the Commercial Code.

__________________________________________
As we say, it is those 5% players black, white, and brown being positioned in executive positions making them feel MERELY RICH----affluent and those are the very positions global banking 1% will be throwing under the bus.  All of HILLARY'S NASTY 5% LADIES in global corporate executive positions are those being tied to stock options in lieu of CASH.

Women in Company Leadership Tied to Stronger Profits, Study Says

By DANIEL VICTORFEB. 9, 2016

Women after the 1960s-70s labor and justice protests were heavily placed in PUBLIC SECTOR employment as were our 99% black, and brown citizens now fighting to protect those pensions, 401Ks, and stock options.  If we continue MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES------in just a few decades these managers thinking they are WINNERS will disappear ending that status of MERELY RICH---AFFLUENT.  We are watching as global banking pols make access to ORDINARY HEALTH CARE and insurance something that only those AFFLUENT/MERELY RICH can afford.  We see how in only a few decades all 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE will not be accessing that health care with MEDICARE et al dismantled.

While those global 1% Hillary pols and player ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT women's rights organizations PRETEND there is a fight for equal wages and lots of family policy in the workplace being installed---they are lining 99% of women in employment structures that will kill their wealth yet again.


REMEMBER, the global 1% and their 2% of women are working for global 1% of men killing 99% of women

 'Employee Stock Options (ESOPs) and Restricted Stock ...
www.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/pdfiles/papers/esops.pdf

Employee Stock Options (ESOPs) and Restricted Stock: ... technology firms in the United States. ... Firms use equity options to reward managers as well as other ... '


Why there are so many female managers but so few CEOs


Women fill 50 percent of middle management positions globally, but make up less than 5 percent of CEOs.

by Sharon C. Bolton March 11, 2015
Sharon C. Bolton is a professor of organizational analysis at the University of Stirling in Scotland.



Yahoo chief executive Marissa Mayer is in rare company as a woman in the C-suite. (Henny Ray Abrams/AP)



The number of women in paid employment has risen significantly over the past 40 years. In developed countries especially, there are increasing numbers of women reaching top positions in different fields of work. And new research shows how girls are doing far better than boys educationally across the world.



For all this good news for gender equality, however, some of the latest reviews of women and work across the globe reveal that on virtually every measure available, women suffer greater economic exclusion than men. Women’s earnings are significantly less than men’s — on average between 10 and 30 percent less globally — and the jobs available to women across the world remain segregated.


Glass walls

In many countries there are obvious limits to what work women are allowed to do — for example, places where women require permission from their husbands to work and/or where they are concentrated in poor quality jobs. Women are concentrated in certain roles and limited to specific management functions in a way that is indicative of the “glass walls” phenomenon, which is occupational segregation by gender.


When examining differences in workplace opportunity, management roles are useful indicators of equality. Becoming a manager or senior executive offers the largest chance to achieve economic equality and to influence access for other women in the labor market.
To be selected for top management jobs, it is necessary to have diverse experience across different company areas. As long as women are boxed into certain roles, this will not happen — hence the need to break down glass walls before women can break through the glass ceiling to top management.



A closer look at the numbers

A recent report by the International Labour Organization reveals women hold 50 percent of middle management positions. But that is as far as equality extends, as less than 5 percent of chief executives of publicly listed companies in OECD countries are women and just 2.8 percent in the European Union. Britain’s Chartered Management Institute reveals a gendered pyramid that is mirrored worldwide, with women holding positions as 60 percent of junior managers, 40 percent of middle managers, 20 percent at senior levels and single digits at chief executive.

There is also some obfuscation around women on senior boards, with women on boards reaching just over 20 percent in Northern European countries and less than 5 percent in the Middle East, Southern Europe and Russia. But there is a lack of clarity on whether women hold executive or non-executive roles.


Recent research on FTSE 100 companies reveals a twist in the good news tale of increased female representation on company boards. The rise in numbers is concentrated in non-executive directors — from 806 in 2013 to 826 in 2014, with a decline in the number of executive directors from 307 in 2013 to 291 in 2014. This is significant because non-executive directors stand back from the day-to-day running of the company. They do not have the same significant presence as executive directors, who can act as mentors and agents of change.


Boxed in

Management is now a profession where women are taking a significant share of positions and diversity is declared good for business. The numbers of women in middle management and not in the top echelons is a result of women being boxed into certain roles and not necessarily for the right reasons.


In management, women are classified as having the right people skills, able to tap into female consumer power and adept at extracting employee commitment. The result is that women managers tend to have roles that are classified as female specialisms — offering less pay, prestige and career promotion opportunities.
The ILO demonstrate how jobs such as human resource management, PR and communication are almost entirely female dominated. In functional areas such as finance, research, operations and general management, women managers remain a much smaller minority. This is particularly important in the context of the generalist character of senior management, where women appear to be excluded through lack of necessary experience.

Continued inequality

This separation into defined roles is the modern-day continuation of historical biases regarding women’s disposition and capacity to lead. It also reflects a certain degree of self-selection, as women choose to enter roles where they feel they fit. This, however, is inevitably influenced by the environment they grow up in — a lifetime’s experience of expectations to behave in a certain way — as well as the reality of acting as society’s carers.

It’s clear that the position of women in the global labor market is not a simple reflection of their actual skills and career choices. It is a product of institutionalized exclusion, which — though allowing the mass entry of women to certain occupations — is responsible for keeping them unequally positioned economically.


If we do not face up to this, progress toward equality for women in the workplace will continue to be glacial. Unless action is taken, the ILO forecasts that it could be up to 200 years before women achieve parity with men at management level globally. Nor can developed countries claim the moral high ground, as we look forward to another 80 years before we might enjoy equal opportunities.


THAT UNITED NATIONS ILO--------GLOBAL BANKING % NEO-LIBERAL PROPAGANDA ALL THE TIME.

_________________________________________

We all remember OBAMA shouting at those dastardly global banking 1% for whom he works-------financial reform will bring salary structure changes-----SKIN IN THE GAME for those stock brokers-----those executive managers being that 5% to the 1% ROBBER BARON FRAUD connection these few decades.

As we watch this transition from CASH to STOCK OPTION we see it hitting hardest in TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY----which in MOVING FORWARD is the only category of work that is not FINANCE.

GLOBAL FINANCE---GLOBAL TECHOLOGY-----ONE WORLD ONE WORLD CENTRAL BANK ONE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY GRID.

Global banking 1% CLINTON, BUSH, OBAMA sell this as holding power accountable-------when they are simply killing the 99% gradually------

SKIN IN THE GAME is far-right wing speak as is BOOTSTRAPPING while Clinton/Bush/Obama operate a STEALING FROM THE POOR economy ------

Sep 23, 2014 @ 09:17 AM 6,438 2 Free Issues of Forbes


Giving Your Employees Skin In The Game


Steve Parrish , Contributor I use my experience to help save business owners a headache or two. Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.


I was working with a business owner on ideas for retaining a key employee. The employee was threatening to leave for a higher paying job, declaring “I love working here, but if I’m going to stay, I want to have some skin in the game.” I started explaining to the owner why he should avoid offering the key employee stock as an incentive. He stopped me, and asked that I first give him an idea of some of his options. “I don’t even know where to start; what kinds of plans are there that can help an employee feel he or she has a financial stake in the company, and will be rewarded for contributing to our success?” Fair question. The challenge is too many options; not too few.



To get the process started, following is a checklist of possible “skin in the game” opportunities.  A convenient way to sort through these opportunities is to consider: which plans share equity in the business, which share ownership of the business and which are for key personnel versus employees in general.




1. Sharing Equity, not Ownership; Employees in General

• Bonus Pool POOL +3.45%: An employer can establish a regular pay schedule, and supplement it with a year-end bonus based on company performance. Typically, the employer would declare a bonus pool after year-end financials are completed and pay the funds out to eligible employees based on pre-set metrics or criteria. This is a form of profit sharing that is outside of qualified and nonqualified plan rules, and it is important that this compensation be paid shortly after it is earned.

• Qualified Profit Sharing Plan:  A qualified profit sharing plan gives employees a feeling of ownership without distributing profits currently. These plans have tax advantages for both the employer and employee, but require adherence with qualified plan rules. The company decides what portion of the company profit will be shared and that amount is then contributed to the plan, allocated to employees’ accounts and tax-deducted. Because it is a qualified plan, there are restrictions as to when and how employees can withdraw these funds.

2. Sharing Equity, not Ownership; Key Employees

• Variable Pay Performance Bonus:  Procedurally, a performance bonus is similar to the bonus pool arrangement, but this bonus is targeted at key employees who are assigned specific and measurable company goals. Each key employee is given an individual goal at the beginning of the year; and, if achieved, is rewarded with a bonus at the end of the year. This arrangement is especially effective when the employee has significant control and involvement in the outcomes that determine the level of the bonus.
• Performance-Based Nonqualified Deferred Compensation:  Employers who seek not only to reward key employees, but also retain them, will often use nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements. The plan can be designed so the employer’s contribution is based on the employee’s meeting of performance targets.  Rather than paying the award in cash, however, it is credited to a deferred compensation account that will vest and be paid out in the future.  Common designs of this plan include Phantom Stock and Stock Appreciation Rights. There are, however, a number of other ways to design these programs that use employee-targeted metrics (i.e. sales or profits goals) beyond just the value of the company’s stock.

3. Sharing Ownership; Employees in General

• Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP):  An ESOP is a qualified plan that allows the employer to borrow money to fund the plan, and is designed to be primarily funded with the company’s stock. This plan offers significant tax incentives, both to the company and current stockholders, plus it creates significant motivation to employees. The employees aren’t direct stockholders, but they become owners through their participation in the company’s qualified plan.

• Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESSP): ESPPs allow employees to purchase shares of their employers' stock, typically at a discount, by using after-tax payroll deductions. They can be divided into two categories: qualified and nonqualified. Qualified ESPPs offer tax advantages, but must follow qualified plan rules, including offering to a broad base of employees.

• Stock Options: A stock option gives an employee the right to buy a certain number of shares in the company at a fixed price for a certain number of years. Employees with stock options hope the share price will go up so they will be able to profit by purchasing the stock at the lower grant price, and then selling the stock at the current market price. There are both nonqualified and qualified (incentive stock options) plans. Although stock options are usually thought of as an incentive for top management, some industries offer broad-based stock option plans.

4.  Sharing Ownership; Key Employees

• Stock Options:  A way for management and key employees to both profit from the company’s success and share in eventual ownership is through stock options. They are often used as a form of incentive compensation for the executive leadership in established or growing companies. Typically using nonqualified stock options, companies will grant options to select employees that are designed to vest in the future. Although there is no significant tax advantages involved, these plans give executives the motivation to work hard, have some control over timing of their profits and are a reason to stay with the company.

• Restricted Stock (RSU): These are typically granted with restrictions as to vesting or ability to sell. When used as a form of compensation, stock typically becomes transferrable or vested upon the satisfaction of certain conditions, such as continued employment for a period of time. And, sometimes the achievement of particular financial targets is required before vesting.  The stock value is taxed to the executive when the risk of forfeiture no longer exists.

When a key employee demands to have skin in the game at the company, the natural assumption is that he or she wants to own company stock. In reality, the employee may not want to contribute capital when it’s needed, pledge personal assets to cover a loan or share in the burden of company taxes on undistributed profits. There are other ways to satisfy their needs which may be just as, if not more appealing. Consider all the options before you jump to the first thing that comes to mind.

HOW DOES GLOBAL BANKING 1% TIE 99% WE THE PEOPLE TO GROWING GLOBAL MONOPOLY KILLING OUR AMERICAN STRONG, FIRST WORLD, DEVELOPED WORLD QUALITY OF LIFE?
Replace workplace wages with what global banking 1% will hold as a carrot while beating WE THE PEOPLE back to DARK AGES.

'Therefore Apple’s $10 billion dollar pledge is not only a commitment to shareholders that the dilution will be eliminated. It’s also a signal to employees: for at least three years, Apple will continue to offer shares as compensation and will do so in a ratio of 1:4 of wages'.


Apr 11, 2013 @ 12:02 AM 32,635 2 Free Issues of Forbes


Employee Stock Purchase Plans Are Making A Comeback
Ashlea Ebeling , Forbes Staff I write about how to build, manage and enjoy your family's wealth.



1892 Stock Certificate (Photo credit: Meredith Harris)


Does your employer offer an ESPP? If so you should be on the lookout for changes that could make it a better deal as a place to stash savings.


As the economy has recovered and the labor market has become more competitive, companies are enhancing their employee stock purchase plans in order to retain valued employees, attract new talent and improve morale, according to Fidelity Investments, which provides stock plan administration services to 250 employers, representing $125 billion in grant value.


Specifically, Fidelity found in a recent survey, employers are either introducing or increasing the employee discount on company stock—up to 15%. And they are adding a “look back” provision that lets employees buy shares at a lower purchase price—the lower of the price at the beginning or the end of an offering period.



ESPPs are broad-based plans offered to virtually all employees, not a perk just for the top brass. And they’re easy to fund—you just earmark payroll deductions to be used to buy shares. Yet to a certain extent employees don’t understand how they work, and in many companies they’re underutilized, says Emily Cervino, a vice president in Fidelity’s stock plan services group.




One Fidelity client, Hologic, a maker of women’s digital imaging equipment, boosted the terms of its employee stock purchase plan last year, embarked on an awareness and education campaign, and participation more than tripled. Now nearly half of its 4,000-strong U.S. workforce participates.


Hologic, like many employers, had moved to a safe harbor ESPP with reduced benefits after accounting rule changes in 2006 required companies to recognize a compensation expense for ESPPs. With a 5% discount and no look back provision, the Hologic ESPP fell out of favor with employees. The new Hologic ESPP boasts a 15% discount rate and a 6-month offering period with a look back provision. Employees can put in 1% to 10% of their salary (after tax) each year to buy up to 1,000 shares of company stock (or up to the $25,000 Internal Revenue Service limit, whichever is greater).  During the first offering period under the new program, the stock opened at $18 and closed at $20, earning employees a double discount (the 15% plus the look back discount).



David Peterson, senior director of total rewards for Hologic, says that two factors drove the ESPP improvements: First and foremost, our being serious about wanting to attract and retain employees,  and secondly, it’s the kind of old fashioned notion of alignment of employees as shareholders, the spirit of ‘We’re all in this together.’”

OH, REALLY?????????????

Companies design the plans and pick and choose among features, so you have to invest a little time in understanding how your plan works. The key things are: what’s the discount, is there a look back, and what’s the purchase period. “Once you have those three key pieces of information, it becomes very evident whether it makes sense to participate,” says Cervino.



You also have to consider the tax ramifications of your plan. Nine out of 10 plans are “qualified”—that means there is no tax hit until you sell your shares. But if your plan is “nonqualified,” your employer will withhold taxes at the time of purchase. (An advantage of a nonqualified plan is that it allows the employer to offer a discount greater than 15%.)


One reason Cervino is a fan of ESPPs is that unlike with a 401(k), there’s liquidity. “While employees may intend to use it for long term savings, they can use it for any need—buying a car, remodeling a home, college tuition payments,” she says. She speaks from personal experience. She and her husband used the savings in an ESPP she built up at her former employer to put a second story on their first house, and now they’re tapping his plan to do a rebuild of a fixer-upper in San Jose, Calif. “I always thought I should have a plaque at the top of the stairs, ‘Courtesy of my ESPP,’” she says.
________________________________________________

'Trading salary for stock options

The person asking the question describes the employer he or she's considering as a "well-known privately held startup rumored to go public in the next year/year-and-a-half." There are two red flags in that assessment: startup and rumored'.

Obama and Clinton neo-liberals created the global investment firm ANGELS and VENTURE CAPITALISTS as the replacement of our US SMALL BUSINESS LOAN AGENCY. These guys now control what kind of economy and businesses will take root since they are the patronage funders and of course they are all SMART CITY TECHNOLOGY startups. These are the only economies we have in US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones and as we shout all these ENTREPRENEUR technology small business start ups are flash in the pan businesses. These global investment firms are of course requiring now that all new start ups tie employees to STOCK OPTIONS -----knowing these startups are going to disappear or be folded into global corporations.

THESE EMPLOYEES THINKING THIS WILL LEAD TO A JOB NEED TO STOP TAKING CARROTS AND FIGHT FOR REAL LOCAL US CITY SMALL BUSINESS ECONOMIES, SMALL BUSINESS MANUFACTURING BY STOPPING MOVING FORWARD.

"As a former partner at Arthur Andersen, it was devastating to see nearly 100,000 professionals—people who started each day with Clients First as their top priority—lose their jobs'.

OH, REALLY?????????????????

We can't wait to see this TAX CORPORATION and the next TAX CHEAT SCHEMES.

We want to return to ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES corrupted by ARTHUR ANDERSON---we see this corporation was created at the time US FED was installed just before the massive ROARING 20s economic collapse from FRAUD.  So, as an accounting auditing corporation as again in 2002 during today's ROBBER BARON few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA we see the same activity.

'Arthur Andersen, which traces its history back to 1913, shredded Enron audit documents amid an investigation into covering up billions in losses at the energy firm. The accountant was subsequently found guilty of obstructing justice, effectively putting an end to all its audit activities in 2002'.



With all global corporations tied to hiding, lying, cheating, and stealing as in AIG/Bank of America------here comes ARTHUR ANDERSON back again. Whose US Justice Department sent Arthur Anderson into bankruptcy as ENRON had served global banking 1% fraud and corruption as long as it could?

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WHICH WAS TIED TO THIS ENRON ENERGY CORPORATION.

Arthur Anderson was allowed to become that accounting monopoly tied to auditing all big corporations under the guise of holding these corporations accountable. When this global accounting firm collapsed its monopoly wiped out all accounting audit structures in US......when? During BUSH era. Seems Bush and global banking 1% pols were finished pretending to hold corporations accountable with auditing just as today in our US city public agencies.

Arthur Andersen returns 12 years after Enron scandal


Former partners at accountant buy rights to name more than a decade after one of world's biggest corporate scandals



Enron collapsed in 2001 with Arthur Andersen doing so a year later Photo: AP

By James Titcomb

11:22AM BST 02 Sep 2014
Follow

One of the financial world's most infamous names is making a comeback, more than a decade after a major accounting scandal saw it vanish.

Former partners at Arthur Andersen, the accounting firm that once counted itself as one of the world's "big five" until its criminal handling of the energy company Enron led to its downfall, have bought the rights to the Andersen name.

They will rename their San Francisco consultancy WTAS as "Andersen Tax", resurrecting a century-old title that was one of the most respected in US financial history.

Arthur Andersen, which traces its history back to 1913, shredded Enron audit documents amid an investigation into covering up billions in losses at the energy firm. The accountant was subsequently found guilty of obstructing justice, effectively putting an end to all its audit activities in 2002.

It continued as a holding company with few operations while the Enron saga ranks as one of the biggest corporate scandals of all time, and led to substantial losses for shareholders and many thousands of job losses.


Arthur Andersen and 'culture of cover-up' 08 May 2002

The Enron blood-letting begins at Arthur Andersen 16 Jan 2002

Andersen guilty of shredding 16 Jun 2002

Enron fiasco could ruin Andersen 17 Jan 2002

WTAS, which was set up in the wake of Arthur Andersen's demise by more than 20 partners, is now one of America's biggest tax firms, and does not do any audit work.

Mark Vorsatz, its chief executive, attempted to distance the name from the Enron scandal.

"Many individuals and organisations were deeply affected by what happened at Enron. But Arthur Andersen, at its best, was a firm that was founded and managed on the basis of quality and objectivity by world-class people with world-class training," he said.

"As a former partner at Arthur Andersen, it was devastating to see nearly 100,000 professionals—people who started each day with Clients First as their top priority—lose their jobs.

"For Andersen Tax, independence and objectivity are critical. To be clear, we are not an audit firm and have no intention of providing audit services."

________________________________________

'We cannot say that BBSO plans are or are not worth the cost, and we do not suggest that retention is the only justification for employee stock options'.

Below we see an article written by far-right wing LIBERTARIAN global banking players------pretending all this EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION is about EMPLOYEE RETENTION when it has a goal of loading corporate debt onto employees making them LOSERS.

We have discussed at length how SILICON VALLEY'S hiring of global labor pool 99% under the guise of BEST OF THE BEST IN THE WORLD is simply staging the filling of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES with global labor pool no better qualified then our US 99% of citizens black, white, and brown citizens.  These global technology corporations have no intention of paying US quality wages and these attacks on wages and wealth with stealth FRAUDULENT FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS------is just that.  We do not want a SAN FRAN pretending to be SANCTUARY CITY IMMIGRANT FRIENDLY when it is GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD MERCHANT OF VENICE enslaving -----to fleece our 99% immigrants any more then our own US 99% of citizens.  These policies are equal opportunity FLEECERS.

Those writing these articles under the pretense of legitimate corporate policy actions are 5% PLAYERS------not REAL left social progressive academics.

Our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE will READ AND WEEP if these are the places we real for finance information. A 99% finance outlet would be shouting as we are
IT'S A TRAP!

The Option to Quit: The Effect of Employee Stock Options on Turnover


Posted by Serdar Aldatmaz (George Mason University), Paige Ouimet (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), and Edward Dickersin Van Wesep (University of Colorado at Boulder), on
Monday, January 22, 2018


Serdar Aldatmaz is Assistant Professor of Finance at the George Mason University School of Business; Paige Ouimet is Associate Professor of Finance at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Kenan-Flagler Business School; and Edward Dickersin Van Wesep is an Associate Professor of Finance at the University of Colorado at Boulder Leeds School of Business. This post is based on their recent paper.

Firms employing highly skilled workers bear substantial direct and indirect costs when those workers quit. Hiring is expensive and departing workers can take institutional knowledge and intellectual property with them. These costs were high enough to induce Google, Apple, and other Silicon Valley firms to illegally collude not to hire each other’s workers, ultimately leading to a class-action lawsuit and a $415 million settlement in 2015. Turnover matters.


Theory suggests that broad-based employee stock option (BBSO) grants are a natural solution to turnover risk. These options typically vest in three years and an employee who departs before her options have vested forfeits their value. This is a clear incentive against quitting. In addition, an employee’s unvested options are worth more when the stock market is strong, which tends to correspond to periods of strong demand for workers. BBSOs therefore provide retention benefits that are stronger when the firm’s value from retaining employees is higher, and when the threat from other firms poaching employees is higher.



While the theory is clear, it is an open question as to what the actual effect of BBSOs on turnover is in practice. Our recently published paper, The Option to Quit: The Effect of Employee Stock Options on Turnover, aims to answer this question. We exploit a large panel of establishment-level data to show that BBSO grants delay turnover. Turnover falls during the vesting period of a BBSO grant, and rises by an approximately equal amount in the year following full vesting. We also find that BBSO plans are associated with a stronger reduction in turnover in up markets, when growth options are high and retaining key employees is likely to be especially valuable.


In the three years following a large BBSO grant (the year of the grant and the subsequent two years), during which the granted options are not fully vested, turnover falls at the granting firm. This does not appear to be merely a correlation: the association with BBSO grants and subsequent turnover is only present if the stock market has performed well since the grant. This suggests a causal interpretation of the correlation, because the value of the unvested BBSOs is small if the market has performed poorly since they were issued, so the effect on turnover should be small as well. Only if the market has performed relatively well since the grant date does the theory suggest that there should be an effect on turnover.


The reduction in turnover is approximately 0.005% of employment per quarter, which aggregates to 2% per year. If a typical firm experiences 20% turnover annually, and if approximately half of workers receive BBSOs, then the implementation of a BBSO plan reduces turnover by 20%, a substantial reduction. This estimate is robust across a wide variety of specifications, suggesting that it is not spurious.



In the fourth year following a large BBSO grant, when the options are probably fully vested, turnover is actually higher at granting firms. We find that, on average, 87% of the reduction in turnover observed in the first three years is reversed in the subsequent year. Furthermore, a number of firms issue multiple large BBSO grants. To the extent that a second large BBSO grant timed years after the first grant reduces future turnover, we are underestimating the reversal. This number suggests that, summing total turnover over the four years following a grant, the total effect is close to zero. This means that BBSOs are delaying turnover, not permanently reducing it. Executives estimating the value of a turnover reduction must account for its temporary nature.


We cannot say that BBSO plans are or are not worth the cost, and we do not suggest that retention is the only justification for employee stock options. They are very expensive and clearly can serve an incentive role, screen for optimistic employees, etc. Nonetheless, the effect on turnover is also important and should be considered a first-order benefit of employee stock options. Also, even though the effect on turnover is temporary, BBSOs could still be beneficial if implemented during a period when retaining existing human capital is particularly valuable, for example, a period of high demand and high anticipated turnover.

___________________________________________
Here are those employees at the time of 2008 economic crash where the global corporation this being WELLPOINT suddenly reduced its value causing a collapse of employee stock options at the same time these global health corporations were making large employee CUTS. 

One can tell by the numbers of CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS against corporations over stock options that problems have been growing these several years------soon to be a great big problem.  Attacks on all our 99% savings accounts and retirements will include these employee stock options especially the new START UP ANGEL-FUNDED TECH BUSINESSES.

'If your company stock options have depleted your 401(k) plan, legal consultation will clarify your position and next step'.


Employees Bite Back in Stock Option Fraud
June 13, 2008, 1:45PM. By Julia Browne


San Diego, CATo lose one quarter of a retirement plan in one day sends shock waves through future plans and security. When WellPoint Inc. announced a sharp drop in its profits on March 10, 2008, and shares plunged 28 percent the following day, Lillian was not able to safeguard her stock option based 401(k) fast enough.

"My money was going into the company stock through a 401(k) plan at the rate of six percent of my income," says Lillian, a five-year employee responsible for retrospective reviews and authorizing health coverage for the largest U.S. health insurer by membership. Back injuries and an unsupportive work environment led to her dismissal from the company. "But although I had left the company four and a half months before, there was no reason to worry about the stocks.

401k PortfolioI had always followed WellPoint stock; I used to check in on the numbers on my account. I'd watch it, especially since I put in a certain amount every month and the company would match. The stock did well.

Then a colleague, who was still working there, told me about this announcement that WellPoint had just made to employees about a drop in the company's profit. That announcement came the day before the stocks dropped. The very next day, I moved my money out of the 401(k) and into an IRA but by then I'd lost 25 percent. Everyone did.

Due to the financial loss, I have less time and finances to start my own business as a psychotherapist, and I've suffered emotionally, mentally and psychologically as a result of the company shift (and from being let go).

I'm 58 year old though and I've learned to roll with the punches," concludes Lillian. "It's the young people with families I feel bad for, those who have bought into the stock options every three months and who were saving up for a vacation - if they lose that, it's devastating."

Few employees or former employees can take their losses in stride. According to the Indiana Business Journal website, four ex-WellPoint Inc. employees are suing the Indiana-based company for allegedly breaching its fiduciary duties by failing to warn its 401(k) participants of its alarmingly poor performance.

Indeed, on March 10 the giant health-insurer stunned Wall Street and its own employees by announcing a cut to its profit outlook, citing high costs, disappointing enrollment and worsening economic conditions. Stock value tumbled, costing stockholders over $115 million. These recent lawsuits were filed between March 15 and May 29 in a federal court in Indianapolis. An attorney representing one of the plaintiffs, a former claims processor and service clerk, alleges that WellPoint was fully aware of the stock's declining value.

Class action status is also being sought on behalf of the almost 49,000 present and former employees who participated in WellPoint's 401(k) plan. Furthermore, they are accused of knowledge that the inflated company stock made for an unwise investment for the ERISA fund. According to the 1974 ERISA law, under which WellPoint is being sued, a company becomes accountable if they are deemed to have knowingly put the employees' stock option investment at risk.

If your company stock options have depleted your 401(k) plan, legal consultation will clarify your position and next step.