James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 2:37 P.M. EDT MS. SANDERS: Good afternoon. Happy Halloween. I thought for sure I'd see some costumes today. Q We're dressed as reporters. MS. SANDERS: That's not nearly as exciting as what you could have come as, but we'll let it slide for today. Today, I'm once again pleased to talk about the topic that we and, more importantly, the American people are all very excited about: tax cuts. We're approaching the release of legislation based on the tax reform framework the President supports. Unfortunately, no matter how great the plan is for the hardworking families, Democrats are expected to criticize the tax cuts as they've done in recent years, putting partisan politics ahead of their constituents' pocketbooks. While arguing over President Reagan's 1981 tax cuts, Democrats claimed it would only benefit the rich. The Democrat Speaker of the House at the time, Tip O'Neill, called them royal tax cuts, because he claimed they favored the wealthiest Americans. What really happened was more than 14 million new jobs were created over five years; incomes grew by over 22 percent for the next seven years; and the economy grew by over 3.5 percent, on average, for the rest of the decade. Some Democrats must have been paying attention to history, because as recently as last year, they publicly supported many of the principles for which the President is advocating today. That includes lowering the corporate tax rate, which is the highest among developed nations, so that our greatest businesses can be more competitive. In fact, Presidents Obama and Clinton both advocated for cutting corporate tax rates. Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer in the past called our tax system “upside down and inside out.” And last year, he actually admitted that cutting corporate taxes is “really important for American competitiveness.” Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi apparently agreed, because she said, “It is long past time for tax reform that would lower the corporate tax rate.” The only thing that seems to have changed since then is who occupies the White House. Since day one, the President has been committed to jumpstarting our economy and giving hardworking Americans the raise they deserve. Under the framework supported by the President, our economy will grow, businesses will invest back in the country, and American workers will see their wages grow. In fact, the Council for Economic Advisers estimates that a typical, hardworking American family would get a $4,000 pay raise. So to Democrats in Congress, particularly those who would like to place American jobs and middle-class tax relief ahead of partisan politics, the question is very simple: Do you believe the Americans people deserve a pay raise? We certainly do. And that's what we'll be focused on and fighting for. The choice is yours. And with that, I’ll take your questions. Steve. Q Sarah, where does the President stand on this tax deduction for state and local taxes? That seems to be in dispute up on the Hill. MS. SANDERS: Look, we've laid out our priorities for the tax cut plan. Those haven’t changed. The President is going to continue working with both the House and the Senate to push forward and make sure that the principles he laid out are achieved. And we haven’t made any adjustments to that at this time. Q But what about the mortgage interest deduction? MS. SANDERS: Again, same point here: We haven’t made any changes to the priorities that we've laid out. I'm not going to negotiate between you and I. But the President is going to be involved in ongoing conversations with members of both the House and Senate, and we've laid out what our priorities are and we're going to stick to those as we move forward. Q Has it come up in the conversation with Speaker Ryan just now? MS. SANDERS: They're still meeting now, and we'll have a readout on that meeting once it's completed. Matthew. Q Thanks, Sarah. A question on yesterday's Mueller news. President Trump's nominee to serve as chief science advisor over at the Agriculture Department is Sam Clovis, and Clovis was the campaign supervisor cited in that Papadopoulos plea. And his lawyer has since acknowledged that he was the one in that plea who encouraged Papadopoulos in August 2016 to make a trip to Russia to meet with Russia officials about the campaign. Given all that, is the President still comfortable with him, Sam Clovis, serving in the administration? MS. SANDERS: I'm not aware that any change would be necessary at this time. Q And on that note, is the administration aware of who the other three or four campaign individuals who were referenced in that Papadopoulos plea were? And are any serving in or advising the administration? MS. SANDERS: I'm not aware of the specific individuals. What I can say is that I think Papadopoulos is an example of actually somebody doing the wrong thing while the President's campaign did the right thing. All of his emails were voluntarily provided to the special counsel by the campaign, and that is what led to the process and the place that we're in right, was the campaign fully cooperating and helping with that. What Papadopoulos did was lie, and that's on him, not on the campaign. And we can't speak for that. Jon. Q The Chief of Staff, John Kelly, said that this counsel investigation has been very distracting to the President. Can you elaborate on that? Is this affecting his ability to get the job done here? MS. SANDERS: I don’t think it's at all affecting his ability to get his job done. And that wasn’t the point he was making. You guys seem completely obsessed with this, while there are a lot of other things happening around the country, and, frankly, a lot of other things that people care a lot more about. The media refuses to cover it, and I think that's the distraction, instead of the focus being constantly on tax cuts and tax reforms. My guess is, if you look at the records, the questions that I take in here day out have far more to do with an investigation that, frankly, most Americans don’t care too much about, and a whole lot less to do with policies that actually impact them. Q Why are you so confident that the investigation won't go on much longer? MS. SANDERS: Because we have confidence that it's going to come to a close in short time. Glenn, go ahead. (Phone rings.) Glenn has got a call. Maybe he needed to phone a friend to get help with his question. (Laughter.) Q Sarah -- MS. SANDERS: Glenn, I had more faith in you to be able to ask a question all by yourself, but -- Q The other thing that General Kelly said yesterday was in reference to General Lee, and he said that the Civil War was a result of a failure to compromise. Was he suggesting that there be compromise on the abolition of slavery? Can you expand on exactly what he was talking about? MS. SANDERS: Look, all of our leaders have flaws -- Washington, Jefferson, JFK, Roosevelt, Kennedy. That doesn't diminish their contributions to our country, and it certainly can't erase them from our history. And General Kelly was simply making the point that just because history isn't perfect, it doesn't mean that it's not our history. Q Let me follow up. You're a proud daughter of the South. When you see Nathan -- like a statue as they had in Memphis of somebody like Nathan Bedford Forrest, who was responsible for the Fort Pillow Massacre, and other folks like that, is there a differentiation? Do you think there are certain Confederate figures who don't deserved to be honored, like Nathan Bedford Forrest? MS. SANDERS: Look, I don't think that we should sit here and debate every moment of history. I think those moments took place. There are moments that we're going to be a lot less proud of than others, but we can't erase the fact that they happened. I think you have to determine where that line is. The President has said that those are something that should be left up to state and local governments, and that's not who I'm here representing today, so I'm not going to get into the back and forth on it. Jon. Q Thanks a lot, Sarah. Just to follow up on what you said yesterday and what you have reiterated today about this investigation and your belief that it's going to be wrapping up soon. Yesterday, you said that, "Those are the indications that we have at this time." From your point of view, is what you're saying wishful thinking? Is it spin? Are you getting leaked information that gives you that indication? Why do you continue to say that you believe that it is wrapping up soon? MS. SANDERS: Again, that position has not changed, and we do think that it will wrap up soon. I didn't say it would be three or four days; I said soon. And we hope that that's the case, in large part because we know that the facts are on our side, there was no collusion. And we're looking forward to moving forward, and hoping that you guys can as well, and we can actually start talking about and focusing on some of the things that I mentioned to Jonathan that we feel the American people would rather the conversation be turned towards. Jessica. Q At the Papadopoulos hearing -- MS. SANDERS: Sorry, I'm going to keep moving. Q I just want to ask you this one thing about one of the prosecutors that is on Bob Mueller's team. At the plea hearing for Mr. Papadopoulos last month, he hinted at the possibility of more to come in the investigation. He said the Mueller probe is "a large-scale, ongoing investigation of which this case" -- the Papadopoulos case -- "is a small part." So, given what he said, as an officer of the court, are you disagreeing with anything that he said in his remarks during that plea hearing? MS. SANDERS: Maybe his reference is in looking more to come between the Democrats and the Clinton campaign, since I think if there's any evidence that we've seen to date, it's between them colluding with other foreign governments, certainly not from our side. Jessica. Q Sarah, I have one question about what the President said today, and then an Asia trip question, broadly. But the first question is: The President mentioned in the tax reform meeting there that he was going to be announcing "soon" some companies that are coming back to the United States. Can you either name them or give us the industry that we're talking about? MS. SANDERS: You know I'm not going to get ahead of an announcement that the President is going to make. If he wasn't willing to tell you today, I'm certainly not going to step in and do it. Q And then on the Asia trip, the speech that he's making at APEC is being billed as a theme for the trip as well as the Indo-Pacific. Does this administration see India as a pivotal part of your strategy when it comes to the Asia-Pacific more broadly? MS. SANDERS: It certainly plays a big role, and General McMaster will be here later this week to discuss the trip in greater depth and more detail. And he'll be happy to address more of those questions at that time. Q Sarah, the former White House strategist, Steve Bannon, is saying the administration should push back harder against Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Does the President support defunding the special counsel? MS. SANDERS: No. And I'm not sure what we'd push back against since, so far, all they've done is come up with ways and shown more and more that there was no connection between the Trump campaign and collusion with Russia. John. Q Thank you, Sarah. Two questions, please. First, the President is quoted last year as calling Mr. Papadopoulos, and I quote, "a great guy." And today it was "a liar." And I wonder, just to kind of clear the air, how well did he actually know him? And was briefed by him often? Did he have frequent meetings? How well does he know this man? MS. SANDERS: My understanding is the only interaction he ever had was the one meeting that the advisory council gathered together, where he was in a large group of other people in the room. And to my knowledge, that's the only interaction they ever had. Again, this was a campaign volunteer. He wasn't somebody that was a senior advisor, as many of you want to bill him to be. He was somebody that played a minimal roll, if one at all, and was part of a voluntary advisory board. That's it. Q And he only met the President -- candidate Trump, one time? MS. SANDERS: That's my understanding, John. That's the only incident that we're aware of. Q The other thing I wanted to ask was that a few weeks ago, when the President sent out Twitters about the media, he suggested that equal time be applied. Now, to many people, that was a euphemism for the Fairness Doctrine, something that President Ronald Reagan helped eliminate and which Democrats, such as Leader Pelosi, have tried to revive. Is he seriously in favor of reviving the Fairness Doctrine? And I might add that its premier opponent of revival was a young congressman named Mike Pence. MS. SANDERS: I don't know that he's into the deep weeds of the Fairness Doctrine, but I know he certainly believes in fairness. And I think that he would like to see that applied, certainly, to his administration in a way that it probably hasn't been so far. Charlie. Q The President -- sorry, Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore is on Capitol Hill today. Does the President have plans to meet with him at any point today or this week before he leaves for Asia? MS. SANDERS: No, there's no planned meetings at this time. Q Sarah, there is still a lot to be negotiated on taxes -- SALT, which was just brought up; possible phasing in of the corporation rate, just to name a couple. When the tax bill -- whatever of it -- is released tomorrow, will the President wholeheartedly endorse this as his plan? MS. SANDERS: As of right now, we see no reason to feel otherwise. But until we see the details of that, I'm not going to speculate on where we are. We've laid out what our principles are, and we expect that that piece of legislation to reflect those principle. If it does, you'll certainly see the administration come in with full-throated support. Q And lastly, on the Fed -- I know you're not going to give us a name. I'm not asking you to give us a name. MS. SANDERS: But what If I did, wouldn’t it be fun? (Laughter.) Q Then we would love the name. Q Come on -- MS. SANDERS: That's the most excitement we've ever gotten out of this room. (Laughter.) Sorry. Q If you want to give us a name, we will take it. If not, my simple question is: Has the President made his decision, or is he still debating it? MS. SANDERS: I can tell you that it's not Major Garrett. (Laughter.) But beyond that, I don't have anything to weigh in on. go ahead. Q President Trump, during the campaign, repeatedly castigated Hillary Clinton for not coming forward and coming clean when she got debate questions ahead of the debates. Why didn't anyone in the Trump campaign, including his son, come forward when there were solicitations from Russian agents to provide dirt on his opponent? MS. SANDERS: I'm not sure how those two things are even remotely related, so I couldn't begin to figure out how to answer that question. Q I'm just getting to the sense of the proactive duty to come clean when there is an ethical question. And is the President upset that people in campaign did not come clean when there were ethical questions and ethical lines being broached? MS. SANDERS: I don't believe that to be an ethical question. That's a pretty standard campaign operating procedure. Q Collaborating with the Russians is? MS. SANDERS: That's not collaboration with the Russians. Sorry, Noah. I know you want it to be, but it just isn't. Go ahead, Mara. Q I have two questions. The first one is: You've been very clear that Trump didn't collude but Hillary did. What is your definition of collusion? MS. SANDERS: Well, I think the exchanging millions of dollars to create false information is a pretty big indication. I think taking millions of dollars into a foundation that benefits you while making decisions that impact people that gave that money, I think those are certainly areas of collusions that should certainly be looked at. Q And my second question is about -- MS. SANDERS: Steven. Sorry. Q Just to follow up from Glenn. Robert E. Lee aside -- and I understand your point about how all leaders have flaws -- but what Kelly said yesterday was that an inability to compromise led to the Civil War. And back in the spring, the President said that he thinks that Andrew Jackson could have made a deal to avert the war. What is the compromise that they're talking about? To leave the southern states slaves and the northern states free? What was the compromise that could have been made? MS. SANDERS: I don't know that I'm going to get into debating the Civil War, but I do know that many historians, including Shelby Foote, in Ken Burns' famous Civil War documentary, agreed that a failure to compromise was a cause of the Civil War. There are a lot of historians that think that, and there are lot of different versions of those compromises. I'm not going to get up here and re-litigate the Civil War. But there are certainly, I think, some historical documentation that many people -- and there's pretty strong consensus from people from the left, the right, the north, and the south -- that believe that if some of the individuals engaged had been willing to come to some compromises on different things, then it may not have occurred. Q Thanks, Sarah. Apropos what's going on on the Hill this afternoon, and Facebook disclosing yesterday that more than 100 million Americans were apparently exposed to what amounts to Russian propaganda, what's the White House's view of that notion, that more than 100,000 people have been reading and watching what this Russian outlet has been putting out? And what do you make of the notion that there ought to be some kind of requirement that Facebook be required to disclose -- the way that many broadcasters are required to disclose -- when political ads are made? MS. SANDERS: I think we need to see how this process works out over the next several days. And some of those questions are things that you're going to have to ask Facebook. That's not something that the federal government can weigh in on at this point, until the findings of that investigation and those hearings are completed. Hallie. Q Sarah, I'd like you to follow up on something you said earlier, but I also want to follow up on the conversation that's been happening about the slavery compromise. I'm not asking you to re-litigate the Civil War. We don't need a history lesson on the compromises that have happened. But does the White House at least acknowledge that the Chief of Staff's comments are deeply offensive to some folks, and historically inaccurate? MS. SANDERS: No. Because as I said before, I think that you can't -- because you don't like history, doesn't mean that you can erase it and pretend that it didn't happen. And I think that's the point that General Kelly was trying to make. And to try to create something and push a narrative that simply doesn’t exist is just, frankly, outrageous and absurd. I think the fact that we keep trying to drive -- the media continues to want to make this and push that this is some sort of a racially charged and divided White House -- frankly, the only people I see stoking political racism right now are the people in the groups that are running ads like the one you saw take place in Virginia earlier this week. That's the type of thing that I think really is a problem. And I think it is absurd and disgraceful to keep trying to make comments and take them out of context to mean something they simply don't. Q There's a new poll out that shows that the public seems to trust many of the mainstream media outlets that the President criticizes more than they trust the President himself. Why do you think this would be? And do you think the White House agrees with that? MS. SANDERS: I haven't seen anything to suggest that. I'd have to look into it. I certainly can't comment on some study I know nothing about and don't agree with. Q Sarah, given some of the criticism we've heard from the President's outside advisors, is the President happy with his legal team right now? Does he feel well-represented, well-defended when it comes to the Mueller probe particulars? MS. SANDERS: I'm not sure how he couldn't, considering -- as I said yesterday and I've repeated several times today -- all of the revelations that have taken place over the last several days and hours have nothing to do with the President, have nothing to do with his campaign. And I think the further we get into it, the more and more we see that happening. Kevin. Q Thank you, Sarah. I just wanted to ask about taxes and then maybe just a very quick follow on the discussion about compromise. If I'm understanding you correctly, what you're really saying is, he's not just suggesting a compromise on slavery, he's talking about other compromises that may have been germane to that period of history. Is that fair? MS. SANDERS: Look, I think that was part of the conversation that a lot of people have had. He didn't get into the specifics because that's something that's been discussed very widely by many historians, again, from both the left, the right, the north, the south -- however you want to look at it. And he didn't get into the details of it because it wasn't the point he was making. Q On taxes. I just want to get a sense of what the President might really be interested in as far as the child tax credit and as far as the Obamacare individual mandate. Is it your opinion that the President would be supportive of both? Meaning, that they need to be a major tenet of the tax reform that will be unveiling this week? MS. SANDERS: He certainly supports the childcare tax credit. I'm sorry, what was the other piece you were asking? Q The Obamacare individual mandate. Does that have to be a part of tax reform? MS. SANDERS: I don't believe it has to be part of tax reform, but the childcare tax credit is something he'd certainly like to see. I'll take one last question. Major. Q Sarah, you said to us a few moments ago the Papadopoulos plea agreement is an example of an individual doing the wrong thing but the campaign doing the right thing -- if I remember what you said -- correct me. Does that extend to Sam Clovis encouraging George Papadopoulos to go to Russia on behalf of the campaign to solicit information? MS. SANDERS: My understanding is there wasn't encouragement. He made multiple attempts at setting up a variety of meetings that were constantly rebuffed. He also made false statements to investigators. That's something that the campaign nor the administration would ever support. All of his emails, again, were voluntarily provided to the special counsel by the campaign, and that is how they got to the place that they're in right now. Q Are you saying that Clovis is being misinterpreted by George Papadopoulos? MS. SANDERS: I'm not getting into the detail of that. I'm talking specifically about the multiple attempts that he made in setting up a variety of meetings. There were more than one instance in which he tried to set up meetings that were rebuffed by the campaign. He lied about a lot of those activities, and that is the place that you, I think, see come through in the emails that were voluntarily turned over. Q Let me ask you about one thing you said yesterday. You were asked at one point during yesterday's briefing when the President became aware that Russia was behind hacking and possession of emails. You said, "I'm not sure of the specific date of when that took place, so I'd have to look and get back to you." MS. SANDERS: Yeah. I can respond to that now. The President was briefed in a pretty widely publicized meeting back in January. Later that very day, he said publicly that he had received the intelligence briefing and he believed Russia was behind the email hacks. Thanks so much guys. I hope you have a happy and safe Halloween. END 2:59 P.M. EDT
House Republicans are considering cracking down on U.S. companies that move overseas while still selling their products to Americans, as part of their tax-rewrite plan due this week. The exact approach, which would make good on President Donald Trump's repeated threats to punish companies "offshoring" jobs, is still unclear, but it has pharmaceutical giants and other companies on edge. Foreign-owned firms operating in the U.S. may also get swept up in any new rules. One possibility would be requiring firms that pull up stakes and still sell their wares to American consumers to pay the full U.S. domestic corporate tax rate, instead of a minimal tax on foreign earnings lawmakers are considering. The aim is to discourage businesses from heading abroad for lower taxes and prevent those that do from enjoying a tax advantage over competitors remaining in the U.S. “We haven’t landed yet on how we’re going to do it,” said one House Republican lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity. The framework of the Republican plan released last month by the "Big Six" congressional and administration negotiators promised — under the heading, "Stopping corporations from shipping jobs and capital overseas" — lawmakers would "incorporate rules to level the playing field between U.S.-headquartered parent companies and foreign-headquartered parent companies." The approach would come with some political, and budgetary, appeal. It would allow Republicans to say they're helping keep jobs in the U.S. — Trump has complained bitterly, for months, about U.S. firms going elsewhere. Any proposal would also likely generate budget savings, helping Republicans get the math behind their tax plans to work. But it could potentially be very controversial. Some warn such a plan could violate international treaties and would surely be complicated, in part because lawmakers would have to draft rules to prevent companies from dodging the restrictions. “To try to stop the abuse causes more complexity.” said the lawmaker. The proposal comes as House Republicans prepare to unveil a sweeping tax reform plan Wednesday they hope to get to Trump’s desk by the end of the year. The new rules would go alongside Republicans’ plans to create a foreign minimum tax designed to ensure companies pay at least some tax on their overseas earnings. Some expect any new rules to look like ones proposed in 2014 by then-House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp as part of his own tax-reform plan. Companies moving elsewhere while still selling to U.S. customers — called "roundtripping" — would have faced special rules subjecting them to the full domestic corporate rate in Camp's plan, instead of paying a minimal tax on their foreign earnings, so they wouldn't reap any tax advantage by leaving the U.S. Both the foreign minimum tax and Camp’s roundtripping rule were driven by Republicans’ plans to move to a so-called territorial tax system where the U.S. would no longer try to tax companies’ foreign earnings. Currently, multinationals are taxed on their worldwide earnings, though not until they bring that money back home.Switching to a territorial system would mean companies, under the Republican tax plan, would face a 20 percent corporate tax on their U.S. earnings but no tax on their foreign earnings. That would give firms a big incentive to move abroad — exactly the opposite of what Republicans are trying to achieve. So imposing a foreign minimum tax would reduce the gap between what companies pay here and elsewhere, and a roundtripping rule would amount to an additional backstop. Camp’s plan did not address foreign companies operating in the U.S., which led to complaints that his roundtripping proposal would put American firms at a disadvantage to their foreign competitors. One answer to that criticism would be to expand any rule to apply to foreign firms as well — which is worrying a trade group representing the companies. “We want to ensure attracting international companies to the United States is part of the calculus as legislators move toward making a more competitive tax code,” said Nancy McLernon, head of the Organization for International Investment, which represents Toyota, Nestle and Samsung, among others. “What’s important for policymakers to understand is we’re talking about companies in the United States — there is no ‘us versus them’ for the American worker,” she said. “Both are us.” “The success of a Nestle in the United States is important to U.S. employment," she added.
Бесконечное переписывание правил игры лишает политику логикиПроблема нашей экономической политики даже не в том, что страна реализует какой-то неверный курс, уводящий нас в сторону от светлой магистральной дороги. А в том, что зачастую вообще нельзя понять, в чем же состоит логика экономических решений государства: одно решение постоянно противоречит другому.Возьмем тему налогообложения нефтяного комплекса. Проблема давно известна. Отрасль жалуется, что нынешняя налоговая система, которая берет налоги с выручки, а не с дохода, не стимулирует компании к реанимации старых месторождений, запущенных еще в советское время, а также к инвестициям в новые проекты. Минфин же говорит о том, что нефтяники получают огромное количество льгот, поэтому новую налоговую систему надо вводить только вместе с отменой этих самых льгот.Здравый смысл вроде бы есть. По оценкам Минфина, только в 2017 г. различные льготы в нефтянке приведут к потерям бюджета примерно в 550 млрд руб.Вроде бы направление [...]
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 1:33 P.M. EDT MS. SANDERS: Good afternoon. I'd like to start the briefing today by addressing a topic that I know all of you are preparing to ask me about, and that's tax reform. (Laughter.) A couple of you got it. The initial House tax reform bill will be introduced on Wednesday by the Ways & Means Committee. This is the product of months of work and is now going through an open process in the House. The committee plans to mark up the bill next week, starting on Monday. The House is likely to consider the bill week of November 13th. In order to stay on pace, we want to see a House bill passed by Thanksgiving. This is a very aggressive timeline, but one that will help us get tax cuts this year so families and businesses can plan for 2018. We look forward to the details of the tax bill being released on Wednesday, but today I want to take a step back and explain what we’re working to do using an anecdote we can all understand. This story has been floating around the Internet for a while, and it’s important to keep in mind that the numbers are not exact, and I’m also not encouraging any drinking. So file that away -– it's mostly for my parents. But I think you’ll enjoy it. Suppose that every day, 10 people –- for our purposes, we’ll say reporters -– go out for beer, and the bill for all 10 comes to $100. If these 10 reporters paid their tab every night the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: first four, the poorest, would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth, the richest, would pay $59. So that's what they decided to do. The 10 reporters drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the bar owner threw them a curveball. “Since you're all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the 10 reporters would now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four were unaffected; they would still drink for free. But what about the other six? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get their fair share? These are the reporters after all, so they’re concerned with fairness. They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth reporter and the sixth reporter would each end up being paid to drink beer. So the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was. By doing that, he explained, they’d continue following the principle of the tax system they'd been using. So he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should pay now. And so the fifth reporter, like the first four, now paid nothing. He got a 100 percent saving. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3, a 33 percent saving. The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7, a 28 percent saving. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12, a 25 percent saving. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18, which was a 22 percent saving. And the tenth now paid $49 instead of $59, a 16 percent saving. So each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the bar, the reporters began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth reporter. And she pointed to the tenth reporter, "he got $10." "Yes, that's right," exclaimed the fifth reporter. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he received ten times more benefit than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh reporter. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy gets all the breaks." "Wait a minute," yelled the first four reporters in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine reporters yelled at the tenth and made him feel bad. So the next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, and the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They no longer had enough money between them all to even cover half of the bill. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally benefit from a tax reduction, but not the largest percent benefit. Taxing them too much -- attack them -- and they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. This is a silly story, of course, but it illustrates some very important points. Our tax cuts and reforms will create a fairer system that works better for everyone. And it will make our country the friendliest in the world for American families trying to build a better life for themselves and their children, and for American companies seeking a competitive edge. And I'll be happy to get that story to everybody so that you can get those numbers later. Again, I know that that may be an oversimplification, but I think it paints a very good picture of the tax system. And with that, I'll take your questions. Q Sarah, first I'd like to get the White House reaction to the indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates -- the agreement with George Papadopoulos. And specifically, you know, we have heard a couple tweets from the President, if you can help me understand. When he says, "why aren't Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus," is the President saying that Special Counsel Mueller should really be investigating Hillary Clinton and the Democrats? And is he going to rule out, once and for all, firing Robert Mueller? MS. SANDERS: Look, I'll address the second question first. The President said last week -- I believe it was last week -- and I've said it several times before, there is no intention or plan to make any changes in regards to the special counsel. But look, today's announcement has nothing to do with the President, has nothing to do with the President's campaign or campaign activity. The real collusion scandal, as we've said several times before, has everything to do with the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, and Russia. There's clear evidence of the Clinton campaign colluding with Russian intelligence to spread disinformation and smear the President to influence the election. We've been saying from day one there has been no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, and nothing in the indictment today changes that at all. Q But the George Papadopoulos agreement is about the campaign. It is specifically about the campaign -- MS. SANDERS: It has nothing to do with the activities of the campaign. It has to do with his failure to tell the truth. That doesn't have anything to do with the campaign or the campaign's activities. Q But it is the clearest evidence yet of ties between the Trump campaign and Russian officials so -- MS. SANDERS: Again, there are no activities or official capacity in which the Trump Campaign was engaged in any of these activities. Most of them took place well before the campaign ever even existed. John. Q Sarah can you just explain what George Papadopoulos' role with the campaign was? MS. SANDERS: It was extremely limited; it was a volunteer position. And again, no activity was ever done in an official capacity on behalf of the campaign in that regard. Q What about the outreach that he was making to campaign officials to try to put together this meeting? MS. SANDERS: You mean the outreach that was repeatedly denied and pushed away and said -- Q Well, that's what I meant -- MS. SANDERS: -- we're not going to take any action on that? Q Can you explain what happened with his outreach? MS. SANDERS: He reached out and nothing happened beyond that -- which, I think, shows, one, his level of importance in the campaign, and, two, shows what little role he had within coordinating anything officially for the campaign. Q Thanks a lot, Sarah. I wanted to ask about Mr. Mueller's investigation. The President, at times, has called it a "hoax" and he's called it a "witch hunt." You've used similar type of language before, as it relates to his investigation. Last week, you indicated, Sarah, that you believe that Mr. Mueller is wrapping up his investigation. And I've heard similar things coming from other senior administration officials. Do you still believe that Mr. Mueller is in the process of wrapping up his investigation? MS. SANDERS: We still expect this to conclude soon. Yes. Q Thank you Sarah. Paul Manafort was high-ranking in the President's campaign at one time. I'd like to know what the President's relationship is with him now. Do they still talk? When was the last time they might have had contact? MS. SANDERS: As far as we can tell, we know they haven't spoken in several months. The last known conversation was back all the way to February. And as far as anything beyond that, with Paul, I'm not sure of any other contact. Q And Rick Gates as well? MS. SANDERS: I know that there was some initial contact after the President was sworn in with him at meetings here at the White House, but nothing directly with the President. Deborah? Q Yeah, thank you, Sarah. On March 31, according to the affidavit by Mr. Papadopoulos, he attended a foreign policy meeting; the President was there. He said that he talked about how he -- that Russia wanted to talk to the President. What did the President think when he said he wanted to arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin? And how did other people in the campaign react to that? MS. SANDERS: I'm not sure that the President recalls specific details of the meeting. Again, it was a brief meeting that took place quite some time ago. It was the one time that group ever met. And beyond that, I really don't have anything to add. John Gizzi. Q Thank you, Sarah. As you mentioned, Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates were named in this for things not having anything to do with the campaign, but with alleged money-laundering regarding other business. Now under those circumstances, would the President consider or rule out pardoning either of them? MS. SANDERS: I haven't had any conversations with him about that. I think we should let the process play through before we start looking at those steps. Annie. Q Papadopoulos, at this time, was working -- was reporting to Jeff Sessions at the time, who was overseeing Trump's foreign policy advisory committee. What does this mean for Jeff Sessions? MS. SANDERS: Again, somebody on a volunteer committee -- I'm not sure how that would impact the Attorney General directly. Q Can you say -- given what we have learned over the last few hours, can you say when the President was first aware that Russia was behind the hacking and was in the possession of emails -- what they considered to be damaging emails about the Clinton campaign that they were trying to get to the Trump campaign? When was he first aware of that? MS. SANDERS: I'm not sure of the specific date of when that took place. So I'd have to look and get back to you. Q Sarah, does the President regret having hired Paul Manafort's to be his campaign manager? And is he and the rest of the White House concerned that this issue will distract from tax reform and the other domestic policy and foreign policy priorities? MS. SANDERS: We're not worried about it distracting because it doesn't have anything to do with us because this is something that is action that took place outside of the campaign or campaign activity. Q And as far as whether he regrets having hired him to be campaign manager? MS. SANDERS: I didn't ask if him that question specifically. Q Sarah, how can you describe Mr. Papadopoulos' having a limited role when there's a photograph of Mr. Papadopoulos sitting at a table with then-candidate Trump at a national security meeting -- MS. SANDERS: The President has thousands of photographs with millions of people so -- Q And he was also cited by then-candidate Trump in a meeting with the Washington Post as to who his top foreign policy advisors are. That seems to fight against what you're saying. And also how is it not collusion when George Papadopoulos is in contact with various people who are promising dirt on Hillary Clinton -- a series of events that closely mirrors what occurred with the President's own son? Did he contact Russians -- MS. SANDERS: This individual was on a -- Q -- in pursuit of information that was damaging about the Clintons. How is all of that not collusion? MS. SANDERS: Look, this individual was the member of a volunteer advisory council that met one time over the course of a year, and he was part of a list that was read out in the Washington Post. I'd hardly call that some sort of regular advisor or, as you want to push, that he's like a senior member of the staff. He was not paid by the campaign, he was a volunteer on a -- again, a council that met once. Q And what about these activities? What about these collusion activities, Sarah? He was pursuing information from the Russians -- MS. SANDERS: Again, he was a volunteer. I think that's something you need to ask him. I'm not here to speak on behalf of the thousands of people that may have volunteered on the campaign. Q Believe it or not, I have a question on this but also on tax reform. The President has called on Congress to investigate Hillary Clinton. Is he confident that they will do that? MS. SANDERS: I think that's a question you'd have to ask Congress. But I think that there are enough reports and enough information out there that seems to suggest it might not be a bad idea. Q (Inaudible) any congressional leaders of committees that -- MS. SANDERS: I don't know. I don't know if he's had a member of Congress specifically tell him that they're planning -- Q Okay, my question about tax reform is: Where does the President stand on the idea of phasing in the corporate tax cuts so it would reach 20 percent sometime around 2022? MS. SANDERS: I think the President has been clear that his priority is to make sure that that's where we start with the tax plan currently. I think, again, he's laid out what his principles are. As of right know, that hasn't changed and don't anticipate that it will. Major. Q Sarah, just so we have that terminology straight. When you say George Papadopoulos had no official capacity, what do you mean by that? MS. SANDERS: I mean he was a volunteer on the campaign and a volunteer member of an advisory council that met one time. Q So his activities were entirely of his invention? No one asked him to do any of these things? Is that what you're telling the American public? MS. SANDERS: I'm telling you that he was a volunteer member of an advisory council that literally met one time. Q Right. But the reason I ask is now there are two episodes in which people associated with the campaign at rather high level -- at least in one instance, and George Papadopoulos is a member of a foreign policy or military advisory committee -- sought dirt on Hillary Clinton from people representing themselves as either linked to or associated with the Russian government. Is that just a coincidence? MS. SANDERS: The only interaction I'm aware of that deals with this individual was him reaching out and being repeatedly denied. So that's all I can tell you is he asked to do things, he was basically pushed back or not responded to in any way. So any actions that he took would have been on his own and you would have to ask him about those because I can't answer -- Q And then what explains later activities that the campaign -- to have that similar -- that same kind of meeting at Trump Tower? MS. SANDERS: I'm sorry? Q What explains the campaign's later involvement with those associated with the Russian government -- or said they were -- to get dirt on Hillary Clinton later in the campaign? Are these things -- are they coincidental? MS. SANDERS: We've addressed that. They took one meeting. Nothing came of it. No, I don't believe so. Q Does that indicate a pattern of trying to obtain that information from that government? MS. SANDERS: A pattern of getting information about your opponent? No. Q From a hostile government? MS. SANDERS: The big difference here is you have a meeting that took place versus millions of dollars being sent to create fake information to actually influence the election. You compare those two, those are apples and oranges. What the Clinton campaign did, what the DNC did, was actually exchange money. They took a meeting. Those are far different. And one is pretty common practice in any campaign -- to take a meeting. The other one is actually paying money for false information. That's a big deal and a big difference. Q Thank you, Sarah. I have two questions for you. But first, if I could follow up on your comment there about the GPS Dossier. This is an issue that many senior-level administration officials have pointed to during these questions about the special counsel. Has the White House asked the Department of Justice to look into this issue? MS. SANDERS: Not that I'm aware of. Q Can I follow up on Mueller? You've spoken with the President today? MS. SANDERS: Yes, I have. Q Can you give us a little bit about his reaction to the news this morning? Obviously, news that swept the nation's capital, but what -- how did the President respond to this news about two people who did work for his campaign? Was he disappointed that Paul Manafort received this news today -- that he was being charged on these 12 counts? MS. SANDERS: He responded the same way the rest of us in the White House have, and that's without a lot of reaction because it doesn’t have anything to do with us. Q Sarah, we are now talking about two of the most senior members of the campaign at a very pivotal time -- through and including the RNC last year -- who are now under federal indictment for very serious crimes -- MS. SANDERS: For something they did outside of the campaign. Q -- that admittedly they did not allegedly conduct during their work for the campaign. But doesn't it speak to the President's judgement that he would choose to have these two individuals in very high positions, having allegedly committed these crimes in the years leading up to their roles? MS. SANDERS: These were seasoned operatives, not -- you make it sound like they were, you know, regular offenders that have been in massive amounts of trouble. These were seasoned operatives that worked on a number of campaigns. Paul Manafort was brought in to lead the delegate process, which he did, and was dismissed not too long after that. Q But the President has no regrets? MS. SANDERS: Again, I didn't ask him that question specifically. April. Q Sarah, what leads you to believe that the Mueller investigation will conclude soon? Do you also believe that there could be more indictments? And my third question, on another subject -- welfare reform: The President talked about this a couple of weeks ago, and I've been trying to find out what is the focus. How do you plan to implement welfare reform? MS. SANDERS: We haven't made any specific announcements when it comes to welfare reform. Those are ongoing conversations and we're looking at ways to improve the system. But nothing specific to roll out at this time. I'm sorry, what was the first part of your question? Q The first one: What leads you to believe that this will conclude the Mueller investigation? Have you been given a head’s up? What? MS. SANDERS: Those are the indications that we have at this time. I can't go any further than that. Q And also do you believe -- indications from who and where? Sarah, indications from where? MS. SANDERS: As I just said I can't go any further than that. Q And also what about -- you don't believe there will be any more indictments at all? MS. SANDERS: That's a question you’d have to ask Robert Mueller. Q But you're saying that it’s going to be concluded soon? MS. SANDERS: I still (inaudible) that we believe that it will be concluded soon. But beyond that, I don't have anything else to add on a specific timeframe. Q Sarah, in March, the President called -- March, 2016 -- the President called George Papadopoulos an “excellent guy.” Does he still believe that Papadopoulos is an excellent guy? MS. SANDERS: Look, he was referring to the council. He was going through the list of names with the Washington Post, and nothing more than that -- and complimentary of the people that were volunteering on behalf of the campaign. Q Papadopoulos told the FBI that a campaign supervisor told him, I would encourage you to make the trip to Russia (inaudible.) How does that not constitute the campaign encouraging him to make contact with Russia? MS. SANDERS: I’m not aware of that conversation, so I can't speak to that. Q Sarah, at the end of the day is there any concern at all from this administration -- again, trying to drill down on what was asked earlier -- that two people who worked for the President are now under indictment? One has pleaded guilty. And he promised to hire only the best people. Is this an example of the best people to hire? MS. SANDERS: Look, again, this does back to these were activities that took place outside of the scope of the campaign. I can't comment on anything they did prior -- Q But are these the best people to hire? MS. SANDERS: Look, the President hired Paul Manafort to handle the delegate process, which he did. And he was dismissed not too long after that. Q Sarah, last week the administration opposed a federal judge’s decision that allowed an undocumented teen immigrant to have an abortion. Now that that case is over, it’s been decided -- she’s had that abortion. What is the White House reaction to that decision? And does it set a dangerous precedent going forward? MS. SANDERS: I can't comment on the specifics of that at this point. Q Was the President aware of this case at all? Did he comment on it? MS. SANDERS: I didn't speak directly with him about the case. Ronica. Q Sarah, thank you. I’d like to ask you about a different topic. Just breaking before the briefing, a court banned the President from changing military policy on service by transgender people. What’s the reaction from the White House and the plan moving forward with reference to this? MS. SANDERS: Obviously, this is something just announced. The Department of Justice has it, they're reviewing, and I’d refer you to them to any specific questions. Q Congressman Gowdy this weekend had suggested that there should be an investigation into the leaks of the grand jury investigation, or Robert Mueller’s investigation. Do you think there should be an investigation? Are you all asking for an investigation? MS. SANDERS: We haven’t asked for that investigation to take place. Q Would you support an investigation? MS. SANDERS: I think that any time there is leaking of sensitive information it should be looked into. But beyond that, we don't have any comment. Kristen. Q Sarah, thanks. Does the President in any way hold Jared Kushner responsible for hiring Paul Manafort? After all, he was an early supporter of bringing him on board. MS. SANDERS: Not that I’m aware of, no. Q And, Sarah, to just follow up on the point of hiring the best people, the top, top people, he said. Does this not at the very least raise questions about President Trump’s vetting process and judgement when it comes to bringing on these people? MS. SANDERS: I don't believe so. I think I’ve answered that quite a few times today. Q Sarah, two quick questions. Does the President -- you said back in July that the President believed that the investigation for the special counsel should stay within the confines of Russian election meddling. Given what we learned today, does the President believe Bob Mueller overstepped the boundaries of his investigation? MS. SANDERS: I haven’t spoken with him specifically about that detail. Q Okay. And my second question, Sarah, would just be on the topic regarding the plea agreement with George Papadopoulos. You've indicted the President did not remember that March 31st meeting, the photograph, right? MS. SANDERS: No, I didn't say he didn't remember the meeting. I said he didn't remember those comments from George Papadopoulos. Q Did he remember anything about that meeting -- his interactions with Papadopoulos -- given that he’s talked about his great memory? MS. SANDERS: I don't believe that he went into detail about the meeting itself. He remembers it taking place, but we didn't go into anything beyond that or into specifics. Q And specifically did not remember that Russia comments? Did he remember Papadopoulos’s presence? Did they have interaction? MS. SANDERS: Not that I’m aware of. Q Thank you, Sarah. Gallup just came out with a poll giving 33 percent approval, 62 percent disapproval to the President. What’s your reaction? Is the President aware of this? Any plans of changing anything? MS. SANDERS: Look, we're focused aggressively on pushing forward on a very bold agenda specific to tax reform, tax cuts. I think that the economy continuing to grow and strengthen is something that will certainly change those numbers. But at the same time, I think these are some of the same polls that also said this President would never be President, so I don't have a lot of confidence in them. I'll take one last question. Blake. Q Sarah, can you please clarify your answer to Mara -- that the stock market is moving downwards on this news that possibly the corporate rate could be phased in over several years? I wasn’t sure if you were trying to make the point that the President would be for a phase-in or against a phase-in. MS. SANDERS: No, I said that the President laid out his principles and it doesn't include the phasing in, so we're still committed to that moving forward. And I don't have any reason to believe we’d have changes -- Q So the red line of -- so the red line of the 20 percent corporate rate stands -- MS. SANDERS: I’m not drawing a red line. I’m just saying those are the principles that we've laid out, and we haven’t adjusted or changed our principles since this process started. Thanks so much, guys. Have a good day. END 1:56 P.M. EDT
Статья Малкольма Стива Форбса младшего была опубликована 14 апреля 1995 года в американском Forbes
План президента Дональда Трампа по пересмотру налоговой системы США столкнулся с растущей оппозицией со стороны групп интересов в воскресенье, поскольку республиканцы готовятся к обнародованию широкого законодательства, которое могло бы устранить некоторые из самых популярных налоговых льгот, - сообщает Reuters . Республиканцы, которые контролируют Палату представителей США, не будут раскрывать свой законопроект до среды. Но Национальная ассоциация строителей жилья (NAHB), мощная торговая группа по торговле жильем, выступает против законопроекта, в связи с изменениями, которые могут повлиять на использование вычетов по ипотечным кредитам, в то время как республиканские лидеры пытаются противостоять возможным изменениям индивидуальных пенсионных сбережений и государственные и местные налоговые платежи. "Мы выступаем против налогового законопроекта, и мы будем очень агрессивны, выступая за его отмену", - сказал исполнительный директор NAHB Джерри Ховард. "Законопроект повредит ценам на жилье в США, отделив стоимость отчислений на проценты по ипотечным кредитам в качестве стимула для покупки жилья" Трамп и республиканцы пообещали принять налоговую реформу в этом году впервые с 1986 года. Но план предоставления до $6 трлн сокращения налогов для бизнеса и частных лиц сталкивается с проблемами даже со стороны рядовых республиканцев. Информационно-аналитический отдел TeleTradeИсточник: FxTeam
Заместитель Министра экономического развития РФ Азер Талыбов принял участие в 21 заседании Российско-Китайской комиссии по подготовке регулярных встреч глав правительств. На пленарном заседании он выступил с докладом о торгово-экономическом и инвестиционном сотрудничестве России и Китая. По словам Азера Талыбова, благодаря совместным усилиям в текущем году был обеспечен поступательный рост двустороннего товарооборота, который по итогам восьми месяцев увеличился более чем на 35% и превысил 54 млрд. долл. «Поддержание высоких двузначных темпов роста взаимной торговли – непростая задача, требующая внедрения новых форматов взаимодействия», - заметил он. Он также отметил продолжающуюся работу по выявлению и устранению барьеров и ограничений в торгово-экономической и инвестиционной сферах. В частности, между Минэкономразвития России и Минкоммерции КНР запущен специальный механизм консультаций. «Мы с коллегами обменялись перечнями, которые затрагивают широкий круг проблемных вопросов в таких областях, как финансы, страхование, налоговая система, транспорт, сертификация, стандартизация, интеллектуальная собственность, сельское хозяйство», - сказал замминистра. Он назвал приоритетным сотрудничество в сфере малого и среднего предпринимательства. «В России действует более 6 млн. субъектов МСП. Они обеспечивают занятость 25% населения и создают 21% валового внутреннего продукта страны. Наша цель – кратно увеличить эти показатели до уровня стран с наиболее развитой экономикой и сектором МСП. Стратегическим ориентиром является увеличение доли малых и средних предприятий в ВВП страны до 40%», - добавил он. Заместитель Министра подчеркнул значимость новых форм сотрудничества между странами: электронной торговли и предоставления финансовых услуг в сети Интернет. Важным аспектом двусторонних отношений является межрегиональное и приграничное сотрудничество. Кроме того, он отметил необходимость углубления сотрудничества с Китаем в области особых экономических зон. «Сейчас прорабатывается возможность создания совместного предприятия с Тяньцзиньской зоной экономического развития на базе ОЭЗ «Алабуга», - пояснил он. Россия начала подготовку к Пятому Российско-китайскому ЭКСПО. «Планируем провести его в будущем году в Екатеринбурге параллельно с Международной промышленной выставкой ИННОПРОМ-2018 с 9 по 12 июля 2018 года», - сообщил Азер Талыбов. В июне этого года это крупнейшее двустороннее выставочно-ярмарочное мероприятие в четвертый раз прошло в Харбине. Сумма подписанных в ходе выставки контрактов и соглашений составила более 4 млрд. долл. По словам заместителя Министра, в ноябре 2018 г. в Париже на сессии Генеральной Ассамблеи Международного Бюро Выставок (МБВ) состоится голосование по выбору страны, которая примет Всемирнуювыставку ЭКСПО в 2025 году. Россия участвует в международном выставочном движении уже более 150 лет. При этом в России ЭКСПО еще ни разу не проводилось. «С учетом наработанного, в том числе в последние годы, опыта организации масштабных международных мероприятий мы можем гарантировать самый высокий уровень подготовки ЭКСПО-2025», - сказал он. В качестве города-кандидата предложен Екатеринбург. Там регулярно проходят международные мероприятия, включая такие масштабные как саммиты БРИКС и ШОС.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's plan for overhauling the U.S. tax system faced growing opposition from interest groups on Sunday, as Republicans prepare to unveil sweeping legislation that could eliminate some of the most popular tax breaks to help pay for lower taxes.
**Must-Read**: I wish that the extremely sharp Alan Auerbach would turn his concern knob up a bit more—in fact, I wish he would turn it up to 11. He says: "change in the guise of [tax] reform has the capacity to make things worse, and the secretive, often chaotic nature of the current process provides ample opportunity to do so..." I wish he would say: "the secretive and constantly chaotic nature of the current tax reform process makes it inevitable that it will end up making things worse..." Nobody should have any illusions that Republican congressional leaders know what they are doing here—any more than they knew what they were doing with their health care fiasco: **Alan Auerbach**: [Five Questions for Congress on Tax Reform](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-10-27/five-questions-for-congress-on-tax-reform): "Congressional leaders say they’re working on a corporate tax reform... >...Yet... they’re keeping their plans under wraps until the last moment, with rumors and leaks serving as the main form of advance discussion.... A framework so we can quickly assess any proposals that emerge.... Does the plan have temporary provisions, and how are they justified?... The "big six" proposal... would allow companies to fully deduct short-lived capital investment... “for at least five years”... presumably because...
Read full story for latest details.
Read full story for latest details.
Sens. Cornyn & Cassidy, ForbesThe arrival of autumn brings a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform our nation’s tax code. American families and businesses are tired of struggling against a broken, out-of-date, tax system. Estimates show that in 2016, U.S. taxpayers spent nearly 9 billion hours and nearly $300 billion preparing their taxes and dealing with the IRS. Tax reform will relieve some of this inefficiency and make our system simpler and fairer.
Part one: Is India's boom about to go bust? The economy of the world’s largest democracy is slowing down, but is it a blip on the path to boom, or is the start of a bust? Prime Minister Modi and his right-wing Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 2014 and over the next few years the economy grew at close to eight percent. But demonetisation in 2016 and the recent implementation of a Goods and Services Tax (GST), have led to protests and criticism from both political opponents and allies. Demonitisation was introduced by the Modi government as a way to clean up corruption and “black money” from the market. GST is a plan to replace a multi-layered, complicated tax system, that has faced incredible teething troubles since it began in July. Part two: Prime Minister Modi campaigned on a platform of “acche din” (good days) but is that being reflected in the state of the economy three years later? We’ll get into both sides of the debate. Catalonia declares independence - what's next? Catalonia's parliament declared independence from Spain on Friday in defiance of the central government in Madrid. The Spanish government responded by approving direct rule in the breakaway region and dissolving the Catalonian government, calling for fresh regional elections on December 21. In an unprecedented move, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy triggered Article 155 which allows to Madrid to rule Catalonia directly, escalating the constitutional crisis This is just the latest in the Catalonian story that has unfolded over the month of October. On Monday we’ll take a look at what’s next in Catalonia’s fight for independence. Join the conversation: TWITTER: https://twitter.com/AJStream FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/AJStream GOOGLE+ : http://google.com/+TheStream
“We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to pass tax reform that is pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-worker, pro-family, and pro-American.” – President Donald J. Trump CURRENT TAX SYSTEM HOLDS AMERICA BACK: Without tax cuts and tax relief, the American economy will be stuck with low economic growth and depressed wage growth. • For the last decade, annual growth in U.S. GDP has been stuck below its post-WWII average of about 3 percent. • Without new economic policies, like the Unified Framework, the United States economy will likely continue to be stuck with low growth rates. o The Congressional Budget Office projects that our Nation’s current economic policies will continue to keep our economy stuck at less than a 2 percent average growth rate for the next ten years. • Wages and corporate profits used to grow at nearly the same rate, but that is no longer the case. In the last eight years, real wage growth has stagnated while real corporate profits increased by an average of 11 percent per year, according to an analysis by the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA). o Wage growth has failed to keep pace with corporate profits as corporate tax rates in the United States have become increasingly uncompetitive. o The economic consensus is that workers bear a sizable share of the corporate tax burden. An analysis from the Congressional Budget Office indicates more than 70 percent of the corporate tax burden falls on Americans workers. • In the last five years, new equipment and capital investments detracted from the productivity growth of the American worker, for the first and only time since World War II. CUTTING TAXES MEANS HIGHER GROWTH AND HIGHER WAGES: The Unified Framework for Fixing Our Broken Tax Code supported by President Donald J. Trump will cut corporate taxes and allow capital investments to be written off, jumpstarting America’s economic engine. • Cutting the top Federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent and allowing businesses to write off the full cost of non-structure capital investments immediately would mean faster economic growth and higher wages, according to the CEA. o GDP could increase by between 3 and 5 percent in the long term. o American annual household income could increase by an average of $4,000. • The corporate tax cuts and relief in the Unified Framework could mean a boost to the economy. o 3 to 5 percent increase in GDP over ten years could represent an additional $700 billion to $1.2 trillion in economic output, based on CEA’s calculations and CBO’s baseline. o Corporate tax reform could spur investment and reverse the trend of American workers losing productivity growth from new equipment and capital investment. o Just cutting the corporate tax rate to 20 percent is estimated to increase long-run GDP by 3.1 percent, according to the Tax Foundation. • Developed countries that have lowered their effective corporate tax rates have experienced wage growth across skill levels. o Wages for American workers of all skill levels would increase after corporate taxes are cut. o Developed countries with the low corporate tax rates have seen significantly higher wage growth compared with developed countries with higher rates. • The United Kingdom shows how not to do corporate tax reform: despite the perception that they were a tax cut, the U.K. changes after 2007 resulted in a net tax rate increase. But changes on the corporate tax side of the Unified Framework lower taxes. AN AMERICAN MODEL FOR AMERICAN JOBS: The Unified Framework will end the “offshoring model” as companies will bring profits back and invest in American workers. • A reduction in the corporate tax rate will keep more money and investment in the United States, while reducing the incentive for companies to shift profits abroad, according to an analysis by the CEA. o In 2016, a Federal corporate tax rate of 20 percent could have brought up to $140 billion in corporate profits back to America, according to CEA estimates. o Those profits could have raised the incomes of U.S. households. • Our current uncompetitive corporate tax rate encourages U.S. firms to keep profits offshore. o The United States has the highest statutory corporate income tax rate among the 35 industrialized Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. o The U.S. statutory corporate tax rate has been higher than the OECD average for almost 20 years. • Last year, more than 70 percent of foreign profits earned by U.S. firms were kept offshore, up from 42 percent in 1984, according to an analysis by the CEA. o Companies hold an estimated $2.8 trillion in earnings offshore, according to Audit Analytics. • Cutting corporate tax rates will encourage firms to invest back in the United States, creating well-paying jobs for hardworking Americans. o After President Bush’s 2003 tax cuts, the economy created 7.8 million jobs over five years, based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. o After President Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts, the economy created 14.8 million jobs over five years based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. o After President Kennedy’s tax cuts, the economy created 12.0 million new jobs over five years based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Задачи на поверхности: привлечение инвестиций, сохранение и возврат трудового ресурса и, как следствие, рост экономики.
«Коммерсант» в статье «Полис на всякий вирус» утверждает, что страхование информационных рисков планируют сделать обязательным. Про кибербезопасность также можно прочитать в материале «Ни байта назад». Президент Владимир Путин в четверг провел в Кремле расширенное заседание Совбеза, главной темой которого стала информационная безопасность. «Рустам Минниханов выступил в защиту татарского языка». Президент Татарстана Рустам Минниханов высказался по языковому конфликту, возникшему после проверок прокуратуры по поручению Владимира Путина о добровольности изучения национальных языков. В пятницу, 27 октября, Госдума проголосует в первом чтении за проект госбюджета на предстоящие три года. РБК в материале «Сокращения по всем фронтам: пять главных вопросов о госбюджете» выделил главные вопросы к тому, где правительство собирается брать деньги и как собирается тратить. «Собчак лишила Медведева лидерства в рейтинге недоверия». Ксения Собчак в октябре заняла первое место в рейтинге недоверия, который регулярно составляет Левада-центр. В ее предвыборном штабе уверены, что это нормальная ситуация и ее можно обернуть на пользу кандидату. «Газета.ru»: «В СССР считали убийцу Кеннеди невротическим маньяком». В США опубликовали около трех тысяч документов об убийстве Кеннеди. «Россия не резиновая». За пять лет Россия урезала квоты на иностранную рабочую силу более чем в два раза и, кажется, власти не намерены останавливаться. В следующем году Минтруд предлагает уменьшить квоты еще на 20%. «Известия» в материале «Всё накрылось газом» рассуждают, зачем Ротшильды заходят в газотранспортную систему Украины. Достичь переходной сделки по Brexit'у будет труднее, чем ожидала Британия (A Brexit transition deal will be harder to reach than Britain thinks). Действительность в очередной раз оказывается сложнее, чем проекты.Европейский центробанк начал выходить из режима денежных вливаний (The European Central Bank starts its exit from quantitative easing). Когда это делается постепенно, сокращение вливаний не вызывает возмущения.Хаос в Каталонии: президент-сепаратист оказался в тупике (Chaos in Catalonia as Separatist President Runs Into a Dead End). Каталонские сепаратисты взбунтовались против своего предводителя, когда он заявил о возможном отказе от требования независимости.Европейский центробанк сделал осторожный шаг. Даже слишком осторожный (European Central Bank Takes a Cautious Step. A Little Too Cautious.). То, что получилось, можно считать это сокращением, хотя на самом деле это не сокращение.Палата представителей одобрила проект бюджета, создав возможность приступить к налоговой реформе (House Approves Budget Plan, Paving Way for Tax Action). Палата представителей конгресса США в четверг приняла бюджет, благодаря чему становится возможным изменение налоговой системы."Твиттер" заявил, что завышал число пользователей; акции подскочили, убытки сократились (Twitter Says It Overstated Users; Shares Jump as Loss Narrows). "Твиттер" заявил, что он завышал число своих пользователей в последние три года и что он намерен убрать рекламу в аккаунтах двух российских изданий.
“Tax reform has brought both parties together before, and it should bring them together today. This is about doing what’s best for the Centennial State, and for all of America.” Colorado needs a tax cut, and Trump’s plan will deliver By Vice President Mike Pence The Denver Post October 25, 2017 … To usher in a new era of more jobs, higher wages and greater opportunity, Trump is committed to sign a historic tax cut — this year. On Thursday, I will visit Denver, and one of the messages I will bring is that our administration’s tax-cut plan is vitally important to the Centennial State. It will put more money back in the pockets of working families and put job creators on the path to a brighter future. … Our current tax system takes too much of working Americans’ hard-earned money. It taxes our businesses at the highest rate in the developed world and drives our companies overseas. And it too often benefits the wealthy and the well-connected, who can hire lawyers and lobbyists to exploit the tax code to their advantage. Colorado has felt the squeeze. In recent years, Denver alone has lost 5 percent of its middle class. But our tax-cut plan is based on four common-sense principles that will bring about a middle-class miracle. … All told, these tax cuts for business will boost wages for the typical worker by at least $4,000. And Coloradans will get additional relief from the tax cuts for working families. No matter how you look at it, Colorado families will have more money in their pockets. The bottom line is that our tax-cut plan will benefit Colorado. President Trump and I call on all of Colorado’s representatives and senators to support our tax-cut plan. Tax reform has brought both parties together before, and it should bring them together today. This is about doing what’s best for the Centennial State, and for all of America. … Read the full op-ed here.
В прошлой статье захотел донести читателю несколько полезных фактов и существующих истин на бензиновом рынке. Приводил график в котором показано как в идеале должна меняться цена на бензин от стоимости нефти, как в США. Вот он: Однозначно можно утверждать, что США опережает нас в этом. Очень красиво, стабильно, показывает высокий уровень управления. По результату публикации https://smart-lab.ru/blog/415746.php, пришел к выводу, что это актуальная проблема для людей. Порядка 5000 просмотров, и 57 комментариев. Это личные рекорды для моих статей. При помощи читателей пришел к выводу, что акцизы это проблема над бензиновыми ценами. Однако после самостоятельного поиска понял, что это всего 7 с половиной рублей от стоимости бензина. Ниже рисунок структура образования цены на бензин в России: То что, государственные поборы в России это не проблема, показывает следующая диаграмма ценообразования бензина в развитых Европейских странах: Как видите на этом фоне, 7 с половиной рублей Гос. акцизов и 5,6 рублей налогов на 1 литр немного выше чем в США, где бензин стоит очень дешево всего 36 рублей за литр. Дешевле, чем у нас. Другое дело, что оптовая стоимость бензина после Российских НПЗ, не отражает реальной себестоимости добычи. Этой слабостью и пользуется государство, компенсируя снижения налогов и сборов от сырой нефти внутри страны, и переводя доходы бюджета на бензин, увеличивая нагрузку на реальный сектор экономики в конечном итоге. Увеличивают акцизы на бензин, с целью контроля. Что они контролирует таким образом, какие проблемы решают? Только проблема собственных карманов за счет потребителя, за счет автомобилистов. Другой вопрос, какие возможности есть у населения, для того, чтобы пробовать ограничить рост цен на бензин, на фоне низкой стоимости нефти. Скорее всего, каждый решает сам, хочешь бери, хочешь нет. Просто стараться думать и экономить бензин, не ездить без причины, возможно иногда пересаживаться на автобус, чаще гулять пешком. Еще и экологии поможете.
Сейчас все говорят о кризисе современной цивилизации, смерти капитализма и т.д. Идёт активный поиск новых идеологических концепций, которые дали бы людям надежду и показали направление развития.В известной нам форме идеология появилась в конце 18 – начале 19 века в ходе революции во Франции. До этого идеологические концепции тоже имели место, но они опирались на религию и представляли собой религиозные расколы. Две первые идеологии – это либерализм и консерватизм. Либерализм превозносил прогресс и говорил о необходимости преобразований в интересах буржуазии. В свою очередь консерватизм, говорил о том, что старые формы возникли не на пустом месте. Они отражают потребность человека в стабильности, преемственности и почитании традиций. Эта идеология главным образом выступала в качестве выражения интересов собственников земли.В середине 19 века возникло третье идеологическое течение – марксизм. Он опирался на интересы промышленных рабочих и требовал полной отмены эксплуатации человека – человеком. Произойти это должно было после того как промышленный пролетариат захватил бы политическую власть и отобрал у буржуазии все заводы и фабрики.Консерватизм, либерализм и марксизм четко различаются по своему отношению к изменениям. Консерватизм выступает против изменений, либерализм требует постепенных, эволюционных изменений, марксизм настаивает на революционных преобразованиях. Таким образом, консерватизм отражает интересы действующей элиты. Либерализм является идеологией людей, которые смогли добиться улучшения своего экономического положения, но хотят получить и политическую власть, чтобы стать элитой и передать власть и богатство своим детям. Марксизм выступает в качестве идеологии бедняков, которые могут рассчитывать на улучшение своего положения, только в результате революционных преобразований.Консерватизм ставит во главе угла – коллективизм, говоря об интересах нации и государства. Марксизм тоже выступает за коллективизм, но он говорит об интересах класса трудящихся – промышленных рабочих. Либерализм опирается на индивидуализм и много говорит о честной конкуренции и о правах человека. Всё это легко объяснить. Действующая консервативная элита прекрасно осознаёт свой коллективный интерес и опирается на группы зависимых людей. Либералы только стремятся войти в элиту, опираясь на свои личные способности, поэтому они заинтересованы в честной конкуренции при занятии важных должностей. Бедные люди, не имеющие выдающихся способностей, могут добиться улучшения своего положения, только действуя сообща.Интересно отношение этих идеологий к государственной власти. Консерватизм говорит, что власть принадлежит элите по праву традиции и передаётся по наследству. Часто здесь фигурирует ссылки на божественную волю, одобряющую именно такое положение вещей. Либерализм говорит о том, что власть принадлежит тем людям, которые лучше других способны организовывать совместную деятельность людей для достижения всеобщего блага. Здесь делается упор на организаторские способности и профессионализм. Марксизм говорит о том, что государство это аппарат угнетения низших классов – высшими. Здесь главный упор делается на подавление и репрессии. Выход для низших классов – революция.В 20 веке происходило смешение этих идеологических концепций. Ключевым моментом был уровень развития капитализма в той или иной стране. Если страна принадлежала к лидерам капиталистической системы, то в них марксизм постепенно отказывался от революционности в пользу реформ и сближался с либерализмом. Социал-демократия была уверена, что трудящиеся могут добиться улучшения своего положения за счет делегирования своих представителей в парламент, а затем и в правительство. В странах периферии капиталистической системы национальная буржуазия была слаба и сильно зависела от иностранного капитала. В результате развитие капитализма в таких странах приводило к резкому ухудшению положения трудящихся, так как значительная часть доходов предприятий уходила за рубеж. Именно поэтому в ряде стран периферийного капитализма победили революции под знаменем марксизма – ленинизма, маоизма и т.д. Здесь происходило масштабное огосударствление собственности для того, чтобы противостоять давлению богатых и могущественных стран Запада. Однако страны, в которых правили коммунистические партии, не смогли обогнать ведущие капиталистические страны по уровню производительности труда. Это означало, что их проигрыш Западу был неизбежен.Сегодняшняя Россия не представляет никакой альтернативы странам Запада. Мы вернулись к тому же самому периферийному капитализму, поставляя на мировой рынок преимущественно сырьевые товары. В результате возникает логичный вопрос: почему же иностранные корпорации не господствуют в нашей экономике? Не случайно многие представители нашей элиты, которые называют себя либералами, выступают за тотальную продажу госсобственности иностранцам. Российские консерваторы, многие из которых вышли из системы КГБ, прекрасно понимают, что иностранцы будут использовать их в лучшем случае в качестве охранников собственности от недовольного большинства населения, да и то далеко не всех. Именно поэтому наши консерваторы пытаются обосновать своё право на власть и собственность. И тут они неизбежно вспоминают о религии. В результате мы видим смычку православного духовенства и власти. Именно поэтому власти приходится делиться с церковью собственностью и привилегиями. Очень показательна история с Исаакиевским собором.Развитие транспорта и информационных технологий сделали мир глобальным. Люди могут узнать о том, что происходит в других уголках планеты. Постепенно к большинству людей приходит осознание того, что нынешняя капиталистическая система находится в глобальном кризисе и не предлагает привлекательных путей развития для большинства человечества. Глобальная элита озабочена сохранением своего господства и стремится к ещё большему усилению своих позиций за счёт абсолютного большинства населения планеты. В качестве противовеса этой тенденции растёт популярность требований глобальной справедливости. Причем не только в бедных, но и в богатых странах.Американский экономист, лауреат Нобелевской премии по экономике Джозеф Стиглиц в своей книге «Цена неравенства» предупреждает элиту США о том, что если не будут проведены реформы, направленные на снижение уровня неравенства, то представители элиты сильно пожалеют об этом. Ведь большинство населения, которое окончательно лишится надежд на лучшее будущее, неизбежно объявит войну элите.Вот несколько предложений Стиглица (даю простое перечисление без детальной расшифровки, которую можно найти в книге):Обуздать финансовый сектор.Более строгая и эффективная реализация законов о конкуренции.Улучшение корпоративного управления – особенно сокращение власти топ-менеджмента по выделению большого количества корпоративных ресурсов на собственные нужды.Многоуровневая реформа закона о банкротстве.Положить конец государственным раздачам – будь они расположены в государственных активах или закупках.Положить конец искусственному корпоративному благосостоянию – включая скрытые субсидии.Правовая реформа – демократизация доступа к правосудию и уменьшение гонки вооружений.Более прогрессивный подоходный налог и корпоративная налоговая система с меньшим количеством лазеек.Эффективное применение системы налогообложения наследуемого имущества, чтобы не позволить возникнуть новой олигархии.Улучшение доступа к образованию.Государственное стимулирование обычных людей накапливать деньги.Здравоохранение для всех.Усиление программ социальной помощи.