Trump says no legislation if investigation continues

[_Doctor Steuss]

[...] his forced increase to your cost of living via tariffs[...]

Speaking of tariffs. In Trump's last agriculture bailout, JBS SA, a foreign-owned company based out of Brazil, received a little over $40 million. They are likely to receive tens of millions of dollars again from Trump’s second round of bailouts.

While Trump (“I alone can fix this”) has been giving this foreign company tens of millions of American taxpayers' money, this foreign company's Brazil based operations have increased trade with China to help fill the gap left by the US.

So, Trump is borrowing money from China, to pay for a trade war with China, and giving that money to Brazil, who is now trading more with China, all the while, American citizens are paying more for things, and losing long-term market share to countries like Brazil that we are in essence paying to take over our trade.

On an anecdotal note, I was recently chatting with an old schoolmate who lives and works in China, for an American company. He said that it has reached a threshold where they are no longer able to absorb the cost, and it would tank them to move the cost to their customers, so they have done a complete overhaul of their supply chain management, which is very unlikely to reintegrate the US into the supply chain once (if?) things return to “normal.”

Winning.

[_canpakes]

Everyone should, except of course for Ajax's [deleted].

Keep it up. I dare you.

I agree; we should be reserving our nastier rhetoric for the consenting adults.

[_Kevin Graham]

Keep it up. I dare you.

What are you challenging, that [deleted]. Don't be moaning about having information you just freely gave on the friggin internet backfire on you.

[MODERATOR NOTE: Remember, personal information harvested from some other website can't be shared here unless the possessor also shared it here.]

Nothing was harvested from any other website. Ajax divulged that information right here on this very forum.

[_honorentheos]

Like it or not, that tax avoidance contributes to your tax obligation being what it is.

I think you have a point on this. Yet I think you'd also agree given that this trend hasn't stopped under Republican or Democratic administrations. Nobody has shown us they can make the uberich pay their taxes. They always seem to find a way out of it.

This is one of those issues that transcends politics or even national sovereignty. On the one hand, we live in a world where capital can move fairly easily across borders between countries, continents, and political regimes. On the other hand, the laws that control information around money/ownership are decidedly constrained by borders. This means a person or group who wishes to shelter money from the taxman has a market place of options from which to choose in regards to where they transfer that money and convert it into, say, a trust or property. But the government wishing to crack down on tax avoidance doesn't have access to the same freedom of movement or information, while doing so will signal to those operating in these capital markets they are no longer friendly places to the money movement game so the wealth goes elsewhere.

It doesn't necessarily matter if a Democrat or Republican is in office and tries to change things. The market is open to those with money seeking to offshore it and enjoy it's benefits outside of the regular, traceable global economy who can just find other places to do so. The mechanisms for this go back to the creation of the eurobond https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/eurobond.asp and the globalization of capital it caused.

This makes for a weird issue in that the forces that are moving wealth away from the lower strata of society and accumulating it at the highest strata do not appear to be controllable by changing party control in any particular nation. We aren't going to change that much even if Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders becomes President and has a green revolution in the House and Senate. We may make new laws and really shake things up trying to get back to the high tax rates of the upper brackets that existed in 50's and 60's. But we can't recreate the same non-globalized capital conditions that constrained capital flight. One thing that has made the US a favorable place to put capital, even if taxed, is that it's relatively secure. Bad players in the US will be more likely found and punished than bad players in Brazil. But that isn't as much of a deterrent in the 21st C. There are options and when nations compete for dollars, the taxed citizens get to make up the difference. The super wealthy will find favorable nations to move their capital to where they can continue to enjoy it while everyone else loses. As I said before, its a form of the tragedy of the commons.

[_subgenius]

... tax avoidance contributes to your tax obligation being what it is.

This is an arguable notion, but it does evoke a pertinent question for your position. That question being, what is the purpose, when filing a Federal tax return, of having an option for a standard deduction?

[_honorentheos]

... tax avoidance contributes to your tax obligation being what it is.

This is an arguable notion, but it does evoke a pertinent question for your position. That question being, what is the purpose, when filing a Federal tax return, of having an option for a standard deduction?

It's not an arguable notion unless one means stating an unsubstantiated antagonistic position makes a notion arguable. In which case, it makes it pointless to have said it in the first place since that applies to every notion.

[_Kevin Graham]

Keep it up. I dare you.

What are you challenging, that [deleted]. Don't be moaning about having information you just freely gave on the friggin internet backfire on you.

[MODERATOR NOTE: Remember, personal information harvested from some other website can't be shared here unless the possessor also shared it here.]

Nothing was harvested from any other website. Ajax divulged that information right here on this very forum. He said everyone should work but at the same time doesn't want his daughter working for a living he wants her to live off of the inheritance he gives her because that's what people deserve for being too pretty. His words.

[_Chap]

What are you challenging, that [deleted]. Don't be moaning about having information you just freely gave on the friggin internet backfire on you.

[MODERATOR NOTE: Remember, personal information harvested from some other website can't be shared here unless the possessor also shared it here.]

Nothing was harvested from any other website. Ajax divulged that information right here on this very forum. He said everyone should work but at the same time doesn't want his daughter working for a living he wants her to live off of the inheritance he gives her because that's what people deserve for being too pretty. His words.

If the statement by KG is true, his post should be restored.

[_Kevin Graham]

I don't care if it is restored, I just don't want this meme floating around that I am out there trying to dig up private information on posters here. That's never once happened.

[_Res Ipsa]

It should not be restored. The fact that Ajax said he has a daughter, described his hopes for, and said he thinks she’s pretty, doesn’t give anyone license to demean her as part of an attack on Ajax.