Never forget this one fact, it is "YOU AND I" that are paying the taxes in the prices we pay for goods and services that we buy from companies!
If the USA lowered the corporate tax rate to 15%, then the USA will become the tax-haven and corporations would move to the States. It puts more Americans to work, lowers prices, and expands our economy. Ultimately, this is a no brainer and multinational corporations would move, not just theory, to the USA in droves because our technology and tax rates will be second to none.
The 15% Corporate Tax rate MUST also become a Constitutional Amendment. Why?
Because as soon as the cycle changes, and it will, and the Democrats gain control, the taxes will rise again. This is why corporations stay away, our corporate taxes lack stability! Taxes become a yo-yo and businesses cannot plan long-term when the political atmosphere keeps changing between Marxism and a Free Market. This eternal battle destroys economic growth and has ruined jobs only to reduce the standard of living for the long run.
Trump’s tax plan reduces seven tax brackets down to three. So it’s not the Flat Tax that Democrats will slam because the rich will keep more than they average person based solely on Marxism that discriminates freely against someone based upon their income.
The first tax cut was JFK (D), the second was Reagan(R).
This will be the biggest tax reform in US history. It does not go far enough, but it is the best we can do until there is a collapse in the monetary system that ends Marxism once and for all. White House chief economic advisor Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin effectively summarized the plan to reporters. It reflects the proposal Trump outlined as a candidate keeping his word to his supporters. That in itself is really unusual for any candidate to do what they said during the election.
The tax rate on repatriation of trillions of dollars offshore is still being argued with Democrats, who never saw a $1 they did not want at least 50% of. The Death Tax has been devastating to small business and farmers. The next generation have been compelled to sell land, the farm or close the business to pay the estate taxes. This has wiped out small farms and resulted in big corporate America producing food as small farmers were forced to sell because of taxes. Likewise, if a small business sees its owner die, the family has been forced to shut it down.
So these changes will be beneficial for the economy and this may be one of the reasons why the stock market still looks like it can grow.
My recommendation is to immediately contact your congressman and senator and back this tax reform proposal and ask them to make the corporate rate a constitutional amendment with a top rate of 15%.
In our September InsidersPower newsletter, we detailed that the end of Socialism was coming and a global sovereign debt crisis was going to lead the way. The sovereign debt crisis is what led to the great depression and it is what is started again at the end of September 2015. It is expanding rapidly throughout the world now.
The latest polls show that most people who voted for Trump are satisfied. When the same questions have been asking about Hillary, the opposite response appears. The polls are actually showing that Trump would win a greater margin today than last year. This is interesting for it is confirming the collapse in socialized government with that began on September 30st, 2015. It was the start of the collapse in confidence in government. This cycle should intensify starting in 2018 running head long into 2020.
This is all good for the volatility in markets we see ahead. This is the same trend that produced BREXIT and just wiped out all mainstream parties in France.
Should you keep your money invested? Where should you invest? What should you buy? Should you own Gold? Should you own Stocks? The traditional Buy & Hold theory is going to wipe out millions of peoples retirements just like it does at the end of every debt cycle in history.
The March for Science is tomorrow and no one in their right mind would say they are against it because of its name. First of all, you are standing against the right of people to march for whatever cause they wish. Second, you would be portrayed as someone who is against science.
I am all for science. I think the climate changes. It always has and always will. Yet I have been portrayed as anti-science and a climate change “denier” by many who will be marching for things I certainly believe in.
Just who does not believe in science? It’s a straw man the marchers are marching against.
What is questionable is the way science is being portrayed and used. Here is an example. You have seen this a kajillion times; now it’s a kajillion and one. . . .
This shows no apparent linkage between CO2 and temperature in a time scale that goes back millions of years. So as someone who is acquainted with the scientific method, I am instantly skeptical of the idea that after all this time, there is now a linkage. That does not mean there can’t be, and I am open to that argument and understand it. But as I asked in my last blog, how much linkage is there?
What I am trying to figure out is why there is a march when many of the people in that march have no tolerance for the questioning of their position. While I think it’s noble to be inclusive and diverse, are any “skeptics” included as speakers? Is there diversity of thought? Of course not. Because in spite of what you see in the graphs above and below, they ignore the obvious. The planet has always had temperature swings — larger than this and independent of CO2 — that should make any person searching for the truth skeptical as to how much CO2 contributes.
Questioning of dogma need not apply. That sounds more like religion than science. Being for science means being for discussion. So who is anti-science here? A classic case of “blame your opposition for what you are actually doing.” It is not the skeptic side shutting down debate.
One must be very careful when questioning the motives in academia. There seems to be two opposing forces today in society in general: people who seek to earn their keep, and people who believe they are owed their keep. There is no question that without research — much of it done in our schools, but also government and the private sector — we would not be where we are today. But guess what fuels the economic engine that allows people the grant money, etc., for research?
I have to question motivation. For instance, if man-made global warming is such a done deal, why are we researching it anymore? Actual settled science (freezing and boiling points of water, gravity, the sun is darn hot) is not being researched. So apparently AGW is not settled science. And for a good reason — if it is true this is all man-made, it’s the first time, established by science, in recorded history. Another reason for being skeptical.
But the statement by the former EPA director that the actions have shut down a lot of business in this country and were brakes on the American economic engine really says a lot about what may be behind this. Preventing only .01 Celsius (you can’t even measure that with certainty) over 30 years was not the main reason. Instead, it was being a good example for the rest of the world. When I heard that it was so absurd to me I thought it was meant to sabotage the EPA mission. But no one said boo about it.
Finally, there seems to be a mass denial (there is that nasty word) that the progress of humans, and of course researchers, has been huge in the fossil fuel era.
The assumption that this would not continue makes no sense. In addition, a vibrant economy seems to be a moral and ethical positive. As far as researchers worried about grants being cut, would you rather get 10% of 50 or 15% of 10? Yes, it’s a bit of an exaggeration, though it makes my point. The population curve and the increase in GDP and life expectancy says to me the pie is expanding and many new challenges that need researching are going to continue to challenge people. And science will have to meet that challenge.
I will not be going to the March for Science. I rather doubt I would be welcome and so I would have to go in a disguise for fear of being torn limb from limb from the open tolerant marchers. But as in all questions in science, which involve why, when I look at the march, I am asking why about that.
No one is anti-science, even if a group of people wish to try to convince you of that.
Member Login Hi, (First Name) | Log Out
Livio S. Nespoli has been a broker, registered investment advisor, and financial publisher since 1985.