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. The Revenue Act of 1913 was enacted shortly thereafter.
According to the United States Government Publishing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:
- Alabama (August 10, 1909)
- Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
- South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
- Illinois (March 1, 1910)
- Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
- Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
- Maryland (April 8, 1910)
- Georgia (August 3, 1910)
- Texas (August 16, 1910)
- Ohio (January 19, 1911)
- Idaho (January 20, 1911)
- Oregon (January 23, 1911)
- Washington (January 26, 1911)
- Montana (January 27, 1911)
- Indiana (January 30, 1911)
- California (January 31, 1911)
- Nevada (January 31, 1911)
- South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
- Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
- North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
- Colorado (February 15, 1911)
- North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
- Michigan (February 23, 1911)
- Iowa (February 24, 1911)
- Kansas (March 2, 1911)
- Missouri (March 16, 1911)
- Maine (March 31, 1911)
- Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
- Arkansas (April 22, 1911), after having previously rejected the amendment
- Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
- New York (July 12, 1911)
- Arizona (April 3, 1912)
- Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
- Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
- West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
- 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 of the forty-eight then existing:
- New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
- Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
- New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
- Vermont (February 19, 1913)
- Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
- 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.