• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1429
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации94
      • Показать ещё
      Люди307
      • Показать ещё
      Разное872
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы628
      • Показать ещё
      Формат31
      Показатели78
      • Показать ещё
      Издания103
      • Показать ещё
Выбор редакции
27 апреля, 13:47

20 Truths and Lies You’ve Been Told About Counting Calories

Many people believe counting calories is the key to weight loss, but you'd be surprised to learn it's not all it's cracked up to be.

Выбор редакции
27 апреля, 13:35

The U.S. Navy Just Flight Tested a Missile That Might Be Able to Kill Just About Anything

Kris Osborn Security, Using an "active seeker" technology, two SM-6 missiles were able to simultaneously track and destroy a single target, greatly improving the probability of a target kill.  The SM-6 is unique in several respects; the weapon uses what is called an "active" seeker, meaning it can send a signal or electromagnetic ping forward in addition to receiving them. This enables the weapon to better hit moving targets and fire in rapid succession. The Navy is preparing an emerging Standard Missile 6 missile variant for combat by test-firing the weapon engineered with upgraded software - enabling it to perform a range of functions to inlcude air-warfare, ballistic missile terminal defense and anti-surface warfare capabilities, service officials said.  The Navy successfully executed four flight tests of the surface-to-air Standard Missile-6 Block I (SM-6 Blk I) off the Hawaiian coast between April 6 and 13. The test mark a key step along the way to delivering a combat-ready weapon to Navy ships. "I'm very proud of my team for the seamless planning and execution of these flight tests, which are the culmination of disciplined systems engineering efforts.  These latest flight test successes demonstrate once again the versatile capability of SM-6 Blk I," Capt. Michael Ladner, major program manager for Surface Ship Weapons, Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems, said in a written statement from Naval Sea Systems Command.  These tests come shortly after recent Missile Defense Agency and Navy testing which simultaneously fired two Standard Missile-6 weapons in rapid succession at a single ballistic missile target to asses performance against medium-range ballistic missile threats in the final stage of flight.  Using an "active seeker" technology, two SM-6 missiles were able to simultaneously track and destroy a single target, greatly improving the probability of a target kill.  "You now have absolute assurance of hit no matter what the threat is doing. If the threat takes a turn and does some strange maneuver and the first missile is unable to sense it and engage it, the second missile will," Mike Campisi, SM-6 Senior Director, Raytheon, told Scout Warrior in an interview.  A statement from the Missile Defense Agency described how a Navy destroyer "fired a salvo of two SM-6 Dual I missiles against a complex medium-range ballistic missile target, demonstrating the Sea Based Terminal endo-atmospheric defensive capability." Read full article

27 апреля, 11:49

ПРО США готовит России засаду

Американцы могут сбивать российские МБР на 150-й секунде полета

27 апреля, 07:05

Изменение климата как проект фонда Рокфеллеров: факты и доказательства

Директор Института окружающей среды и правового поля Крейг Ричардсон в эфире программы «Шоу Алекса Джонса» рассказал об отчете под названием «Путь Рокфеллеров: тайный план по изменению климата», выпущенным специалистами возглавляемой им организации. Каковы место и роль представителей известного международного клана банкиров в том феномене, которые ученые сегодня называют трансформацией климата на планете? Известное историческое выражение времен Римской империи «Все дороги ведут в Рим» с учетом текущей действительности можно перефразировать в лозунг «Все дороги ведут в Центр Рокфеллеров», особенно если дело касается таких ключевых сфер жизни, как политика, здравоохранение, фармацевтика, окружающая среда или энергетика. Основатель нефтяной компании «Standard Oil» и первый долларовый миллиардер в истории человечества Джон Дэвисон Рокфеллер довольно быстро понял роль общественных организаций в формировании курса развития цивилизации.

27 апреля, 06:00

There’s A War On Sugar. Is It Justified?

Some people argue that sugar should be regulated, like alcohol and tobacco, on the grounds that it’s addictive and toxic. How much sense does that make? We hear from a regulatory advocate, an evidence-based skeptic, a former FDA commissioner — and the organizers of Milktoberfest. The post There’s A War On Sugar. Is It Justified? appeared first on Freakonomics.

27 апреля, 05:30

President Trump Proposed a Massive Tax Cut. Here’s What You Need to Know.

We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do something big. President Trump has made tax reform a priority, and we have a Republican Congress that wants to get it done. This is something that Democrats should support too because it’s good for the American people. The President is going to seize this opportunity by leading the most significant tax reform legislation since 1986 – and one of the biggest tax cuts in American history. The President has focused on three things since his campaign: job creation, economic growth, and helping low and middle-income families who have been left behind by this economy. He understands that there are a lot of people in this country that feel like they work hard and still can’t get ahead. They are sick of turning their paychecks over to Washington and having no idea how their tax dollars are spent. They are frustrated by a tax code that is so complicated that they can’t even do their own taxes. That’s why tax reform is such a big priority for this President.  He cares about making the economy work better for the American people. We are going to cut taxes for businesses to make them competitive, and we are going to cut taxes for the American people – especially low and middle-income families. In 1935, we had a one-page tax form consisting of 34 lines and two pages of instructions.  Today, the basic 1040 form has 79 lines and 211 pages of instructions. Instead of a single tax form, the IRS now has 199 tax forms on the individual side of the tax code alone. Taxpayers spend nearly 7 billion hours complying with the tax code each year, and nearly 90% of taxpayers need help filing their taxes. We are going to cut taxes and simplify the tax code by taking the current 7 tax brackets we have today and reducing them to only three brackets: 10 percent, 25 percent, and 35 percent. We are going to double the standard deduction so that a married couple won’t pay any taxes on the first $24,000 of income they earn.  So in essence, we are creating a 0 percent tax rate for the first $24,000 that a couple earns. The larger standard deduction also leads to simplification because far fewer taxpayers will need to itemize, which means their tax form can go back to that one simple page. Families in this country will also benefit from tax relief to help them with child and dependent care expenses. We are going to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT creates significant complications and burdens by requiring taxpayers to do their taxes twice to see which is higher. That makes no sense; we should have one simple tax code. Job creation and economic growth is the top priority for this Administration, and nothing drives economic growth like capital investment. Therefore, we are going to return the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 20 percent by repealing the harmful 3.8 percent Obamacare tax. That tax has been a direct hit on investment income and small business owners.  We are going to repeal the death tax. The threat of being hit by the death tax leads small business owners and farmers in this country to waste countless hours and resources on complicated estate planning to make sure their children aren’t hit with a huge tax when they die. No one wants their children to have to sell the family business to pay an unfair tax. We are going to eliminate most of the tax breaks that mainly benefit high-income individuals.  Home ownership, charitable giving, and retirement savings will be protected – but other tax benefits will be eliminated. This is not going to be easy. Doing big things never is. But one thing is for certain: I would not bet against this President.  He will get this done for the American people. Gary Cohn is the chief economic advisor to President Donald J. Trump and Director of the National Economic Council  

27 апреля, 03:54

Ann Coulter the Liberal

Because the California National Guard couldn’t be mobilized in time, Ann Coulter had to withdraw from giving a speech at Berkeley.If you take it seriously, that’s the import of UC Berkeley’s decision to do everything it could to keep the conservative provocateur from speaking on campus over safety concerns.“If somebody brings weapons, there’s no way to block off the site, or to screen them,” the chancellor of the university said of Coulter’s plan to go ahead and speak at an open-air forum after the school canceled her talk scheduled for this week.The administrator made it sound as if Coulter would have been about as safe at Berkeley as she would have been addressing a meeting of MS-13—and he might have been right.We have entered a new, much less metaphorical phase of the campus-speech wars. We’re beyond hissing, or disinviting. We’re no longer talking about the heckler’s veto, but the masked-thugs-who-will-burn-trash-cans-and-assault-you-and-your-entourage veto.Coulter is a rhetorical bomb-thrower, which is an entirely different thing than being a real bomb-thrower. Coulter has never tried to shout down a speaker she doesn’t like. She hasn’t thrown rocks at cops. She isn’t an arsonist. She offers up provocations that she gamely defends in almost any setting with arguments that people are free to accept, or reject, or attempt to correct.In other words, in the Berkeley context, she’s the liberal. She believes in the efficacy of reason and in the free exchanges of ideas. Her enemies do not.Indeed, the budding fascism that progressives feared in the Trump years is upon us, although not in the form they expected. It is represented by the black-clad shock troops of the “anti-fa” movement who are violent, intolerant and easily could be mistaken for the street fighters of the extreme right in 1930s Europe. That they call themselves anti-fa speaks to a colossal lack of self-awareness.It is incumbent on all responsible progressives to reject this movement, and — just as important — the broader effort to suppress controversial speech. This is why Howard Dean’s comments about hate speech not being protected by the First Amendment were so alarming. In Dean’s defense, he had no idea what he was talking about, but he was effectively making himself the respectable voice of the rock throwers.After his tweet about hate speech got pushback, Dean tried to throw up a couple of Supreme Court decisions supporting his contention and came up empty. As Eugene Volokh of UCLA law school explained, the court has defined nonprotected “fighting words” narrowly as insults directed at a specific person. Having unwelcome opinions on immigration, or a whole host of other issues, doesn’t remotely qualify.The upshot of Dean’s view was that “Berkeley is within its rights to make the decision that it puts their campus in danger if they have her there.” This justification, advanced by the school itself, is profoundly wrongheaded.It is an inherently discriminatory standard, since the Berkeley College Republicans aren’t given to smashing windows and throwing things when an extreme lefty shows up on campus, which is a near-daily occurrence.It would deny Coulter something she has a right to do (speak her mind on the campus of a public university) in reaction to agitators doing things they don’t have a right to do (destroy property, among other acts of mayhem).It would suppress an intellectual threat, i.e., a dissenting viewpoint, and reward a physical threat.This is perverse. As it happens, one of the more stalwartly liberal voices in the Democratic Party is the socialist who isn’t formally part of the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders. He rebuked the movement to shut down Coulter as “a sign of intellectual weakness.” Perhaps Sanders is simply old enough to recall the 1960s’ arguments for free speech advanced by a different generation of UC Berkeley protesters. It is welcome, nonetheless.For now there is a consensus in favor of free speech in the country that is especially entrenched in the judiciary. The anti-fa and other agitators aren’t going to change that anytime soon. But they could effectively make it too burdensome for certain speakers to show up on campus, and over time more Democrats like Dean could rationalize this fact by arguing that so-called hate speech doesn’t deserve First Amendment protection.So, it isn’t enough for schools like UC Berkeley to say that they value free speech, yet do nothing to punish disrupters and throw up their hands at the task of providing security for controversial speakers. If everyone else gets safe space at UC Berkeley, Coulter deserves one. If the anti-fa are willing to attack free speech through illegal force, the authorities should be willing to defend it by lawful force.Heck, if necessary, call out the National Guard.

27 апреля, 03:28

In Support Of Coulter's Right To Speak

Decades ago, a group of American Nazis wanted to hold a march, complete with swastikas and all the rest of the Nazi regalia. The city they wanted to march in turned their request down. The Nazis fought in court, and they were aided in doing so by the American Civil Liberties Union. That’s what an unshakable commitment to the First Amendment means ― defending those with whom you do not agree. Which is why I support Ann Coulter’s right to speak at the University of California, Berkeley. I certainly don’t agree with a single word that comes out of the woman’s mouth, but I have to defend her right to spew her bile in a venue supported by my tax dollars. The Nazi case was a shocking one for many reasons, and anyone who uses the term “trigger warning” today will be horrified (perhaps this sentence should have been preceded by a trigger warning for those who support trigger warnings?) to learn that the city in Illinois where the Nazis wanted to hold a swastika-bedecked march was not only 40 percent Jewish, but by some estimates one out of every six was either a Holocaust survivor or a family member of a Holocaust survivor. In other words, the Nazis weren’t just trying to be as offensive as humanly possible, but they also were hand-picking their venue to maximize how offensive their march would be to the residents. But they still had the right to march, and the Supreme Court ruled they would be allowed to display swastikas, as well. Free speech isn’t absolute. There are restrictions on the First Amendment. The biggest of these is speech that incites violence. Call it “fighting words” or call it “incitement to riot,” speech that directly leads to violence is not protected free speech. Speech that causes unsafe panic is also not allowed ― the famous “falsely shouting fire in a theater.” Beyond those two reasonable restrictions for public safety, things get fuzzier. Actually, even those two still have some fuzzy edges. There are people currently arguing in court that Donald Trump incited violence at his presidential campaign rallies, for instance. And the Schenck case that birthed the phrase “falsely shouting fire in a theater” (the word “crowded” did not appear in the original) would be seen as laughably dubious in today’s world (I’ve written about this case previously, which involved a protester handing out a flier with a legal argument that a military draft was unconstitutional, during World War I). Getting beyond public safety limits, what other limits on free speech (most especially political speech) exist? Is it allowable to ban “hate speech”? Do the students have a right not to be offended by a speaker? Well, no and no. Because Berkeley is a public school ― supported by government tax dollars, in other words ― it is considered a branch of the government. As such, it can either allow everyone the ability to speak, or no one. This has already been adjudicated, in slightly different formats. For instance, a KKK group applied for a “adopt-a-highway” program, and were denied. They wanted to pick up the trash on a few miles of state road, and also get the privilege of a little sign by its side with their name on it ― the same as every other group that picked up trash in the program. The state made a convincing argument in court for why it turned the group down ― because, they said, motorists would go out of their way to litter on that stretch of highway to protest a KKK group’s sign. As I said, that’s a pretty reasonable argument. But they were ruled against. The judge ruled that the state could either accept all groups or none, period ― without regard to their beliefs or political views. This “all or nothing” rule also applies to states’ afterschool groups in K-12 schools. A while back, several states’ school systems tried to ban gay support groups from having access to meeting rooms, while at the same time allowing the Boy Scouts (who at the time still banned gays) to meet. The states lost in court, because they could either allow everyone or no one, period. This all may seem pretty extreme, but then the First Amendment is pretty extreme, when it comes to government regulation of speech. Free speech means nobody gets arrested for their political views. But, as many have pointed out, popular political speech doesn’t really need protecting ― it is unpopular speech that needs protecting the most. This even includes arguing that certain laws should be changed. Which means that Berkeley cannot even ban a speaker from NAMBLA, who argues pedophilia should be made legal. If they can ban NAMBLA, then they could also ban a marijuana reform activist or a transgender activist or indeed anyone at all arguing that our laws needed changing (for better or worse, in other words). The university is at one remove, in the Coulter case. The university itself didn’t invite her to speak. It’s hard to imagine Berkeley officially inviting someone like Coulter (or a NAMBLA activist, for that matter) to speak. Then again, torture-rationalizing John Yoo was invited onto the faculty of the Berkeley law school, so who knows? My point is the university can set any standard they want for who they choose to invite to give an officially-sanctioned speech. In Coulter’s case, however, it was a campus group that invited her. It was the students’ initiative, not the university’s. And, much like state high schools, the administration can either allow all student-invited speakers, or none. What it cannot do is pick and choose on purely political grounds. There is the safety argument, but even that has its limits. Even public high schools have to allow a certain amount of free speech from the students. The Supreme Court ruled public school students ― even though minors ― still had the right to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, ruling against the schools’ argument that it was a public safety risk (because it would provoke fights). However, schools today routinely ban gang colors using the same reasoning (to prevent violence), which is allowed. Berkeley is right to worry about the potential for violence if Coulter speaks, given what happened when another controversial conservative speaker was scheduled a few months ago. Two groups ― mostly not even students, but outside agitators ― have faced off several times on the streets of Berkeley in the past few months, with violent consequences. Which brings me to my final point. The answer to offensive free speech, it has been said, is more free speech. Don’t like what someone advocates? Let your voice be heard! But this gets a little tricky in the real world. After all, what is the acceptable way to protest a speaker with whom you do not agree? Stand outside the venue and protest loudly? Attend the speech and protest loudly? Fight for what you think is right, even if it means violence? There are lines that should be drawn, obviously. Violence, to me, is completely uncalled for no matter what a speaker is advocating. Protesting ― as loudly as you like ― outside the venue is entirely acceptable, however. Let the audience walking in hear an earful! But I would also argue that blocking the entrances to prevent an audience from getting in is over the line. Physical intimidation or physical violence to achieve political ends can be called by two words, neither of them good. If you want to be polite, you can call it “bullying.” The message is clear: we’re stronger than you, so you don’t get to hear somebody speak. The uglier term for violence to further political means is “terrorism.” Now, even a street riot outside a lecture hall isn’t normally a deadly level of violence, but the level doesn’t really matter. Making someone fear violent retribution for their political beliefs is one functional definition of terrorism. This is what I believe, at any rate, which is why I draw the line at politically-inspired violence. The grey area, for me, is what happens inside the hall. Do students have a right to a “shouter’s veto” over someone else’s free speech? Isn’t that just more free speech? Or is it further bullying ― denying a speaker her voice because ours is louder? This is a tough one, and different people have different opinions. It’s not a legal matter, it’s more a matter of politeness. But everyone has their own lines on the issue. If I had been standing on a sidewalk in Skokie, Illinois and a bunch of Nazis in full regalia marched by, I most probably would have very loudly voiced my displeasure and disgust. I might have even followed them to where they were holding a rally and continued to shout them down. I would consider that the most moral thing to do, really. So I can understand how some people feel Ann Coulter deserves nothing more than the same treatment, even inside the lecture hall. But I can also sympathize with those who feel that the real way to counter a speaker like Coulter is to listen to what she has to say (allowing her to speak) and then refuting it point by point afterwards. That is a debate, and is two-sided. Those who feel this way have every right to be annoyed when others deny a speaker the chance to even make her case. If audience members are so disruptive that they are denying the speaker the chance to be heard, then they should be removed by security so the rest of the crowd can hear the speech. That doesn’t seem to be unreasonable, but again, I realize that everyone draws these lines differently. Ann Coulter lives to be provocative. It’s really her whole shtick. The more she can rile up the liberals, the more fun she has. On the level she cares most about, she’s already chalked up Berkeley as a roaring success, even though it looks like she won’t be giving her speech at all (in a twist, the group that invited her has now disinvited her, for some reason). If she had been allowed to speak and no news was made, her speech would have been a failure, to put it another way. Instead, she’s made nationwide headlines. The cruelest thing liberals could have done to Coulter in Berkeley would have been to completely ignore her, which would have starved her of the attention she craves. At this point, whatever speech she gives or doesn’t give is going to be nothing more than a footnote to the controversy she’s already created. Berkeley did not try to ban Ann Coulter, but they did mishandle the process. Because Berkeley seems to be the new battleground for both left and right, though, Coulter’s not going to be the last chapter in this drama. As long as student groups are allowed to invite people to speak, speakers who are even more provocative can be expected in the near future. But, really, that is what free speech is all about. Remember, political speech that everyone agrees with is not what the First Amendment is there for. It’s there for the most extreme and provocative speech, because that’s what needs protecting the most ― whether you agree with it or not. Chris Weigant blogs at: Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

27 апреля, 02:31

Trump Aims To Limit The Education Department's Influence In New Order

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Wednesday that seeks to reduce federal intervention in education. It builds on vows he made during the campaign to dismantle the Common Core State Standards and hand greater control of schools back to states and localities. But initially, at least, the order doesn’t do much. The order directs Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to identify examples of federal overreach in her bailiwick, senior Education Department official Rob Goad said on a call with reporters. For the next 300 days, DeVos and a team of department staffers will analyze regulations and guidance to determine whether they legally overstep the department’s authority.  “For too long the federal government has imposed its will on state and local governments. The result has been education that spends more and achieves far, far, far less. My administration has been working to reverse this federal power grab,” Trump said on Wednesday.  It’s not clear what policies Education Department officials will actually finger, and a federal law passed in late 2015 already returns a degree of education power to the states. But some of Trump’s supporters are hoping the administration acts quickly to roll back the federal government’s support of Common Core, as well as Obama-era guidance related to students’ civil rights.  The Common Core standards are a set of education benchmarks that the Obama administration incentivized states to adopt. They were designed to make sure that kids received similar schooling across state lines. Conservatives, however, have rallied against them as an example of federal interference in local schools. During his campaign, Trump repeatedly said he would work to erase them. Jane Robbins, a senior fellow with the conservative American Principles Project, has long advocated an end to Common Core. Although she has recently been critical of Trump’s seeming abandonment of the issue, she is optimistic about the new executive order.  “I think it’s a very good first step. It indicates to me that all of the encouragement the grassroots have given to President Trump not to abandon his campaign promises on education have had some effect,” Robbins said.  Because Common Core was adopted at the state level, the federal government can’t simply dismantle the system. Many states have been teaching kids under these learning benchmarks for several years now.  As for students’ civil rights, some conservative- and libertarian-leaning lawyers have been pushing DeVos to rescind Obama-era guidance on the matter. The Trump administration has already rescinded guidance that provided protections for transgender students. Roger Clegg, president and general counsel at the Center for Equal Opportunity, has been pressuring the Trump administration to re-examine guidance related to student punishments. In 2014, the Education Department warned that it would initiate investigations into school districts with severe racial disparities in student discipline. Those disparities need not be the result of direct discrimination to warrant examination, the guidance states.  Studies have shown that black students are suspended more frequently than white students, even for the same offenses.  In late March, Clegg wrote to the administration calling for withdrawal of that directive.  “It is bad policy because it means that perfectly legitimate school discipline polices can be struck down or abandoned because they have politically incorrect statistical results,” said Clegg on Tuesday, before the new executive order had been announced.  Clegg said he has “reason to believe” the administration is taking his concerns seriously. “I think in the long term, a reason we have these disparities is because of the fact that unfortunately there are a higher percentage of discipline problems in some racial and ethnic groups than other racial and ethnic groups. It’s not anything genetic; it’s cultural,” said Clegg, pointing to the disparities in out-of-wedlock birth rates between black and white families.  However, Catherine Brown of the progressive Center for American Progress thinks the executive order may not result in any significant changes.  “I think it’s kind of silly. I feel like it’s purely symbolic,” said Brown. “I think he’s just trying to get as many executive orders before the first 100 days so he could claim it as credit.” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

27 апреля, 01:29

Daniel Halper joins Drudge Report

Daniel Halper was most recently Washington bureau chief of The New York Post.

27 апреля, 00:38

5 things to know about Trump's tax plan

Though it broke little new ground, President Donald Trump's tax reform outline underscores just how arduous a task overhauling the tax code could be for Republicans this year. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Gary Cohn, the director of the National Economic Council, handed out a one-page overview of the plan Wednesday — and told reporters that the administration had to fill in many of the key details that make overhauling the tax code so difficult that it’s happened only a handful of times over the last century.Here are five things to know about the newest version of Trump’s tax plan:What’s in it?Trump released a couple tax plans during the campaign, with the most recent coming around seven months ago. Many of the details released Wednesday haven’t changed since that September plan, including proposals to cut the top tax rate for all businesses to 15 percent and to repeal the estate tax and alternative minimum tax.But some changes have been made, including a couple major ones. Trump now proposes a so-called territorial tax system that shields offshore corporate income from U.S. taxation, a key priority for corporate America. The top tax rate on individuals is also slightly higher than in Trump’s last plan, moving to 35 percent from 33 percent, while tax incentives like the deduction for state and local taxes would get the ax. And the Trump team seeks to double the standard deduction claimed by most taxpayers, which is still smaller than what the campaign sought in September.How’s it different from what Congress wants?House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and the House’s top tax writer, Kevin Brady (R-Texas), have taken to saying that their tax blueprint is about 80 percent in sync with the White House’s. The two sides disagree on the border-adjusted tax — applied to imports but not exports — that is central to the House blueprint, the House plan has a 20 percent rate for businesses and a 33 percent top rate for individuals, and Trump wants to go after an Obamacare tax on investment income for higher earners that GOP leaders would like to tackle in an Affordable Care Act replacement.But there is quite a bit of overlap between the two plans, including a territorial system and a repeal of the estate tax and the AMT. Ryan, Brady, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch released a statement that said Wednesday’s details “will serve as critical guideposts for Congress and the administration as we work together to overhaul the American tax system.”How much does it cost?Short answer: Impossible to say right now. Both the conservative Tax Foundation and the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center projected that Trump’s last campaign plan would cost in the neighborhood of $6 trillion over a decade. Still, there are projections for individual pieces of Trump's earlier plan that got carried over to Wednesday — for instance, the Tax Policy Center projects that a 15 percent rate for both corporations and businesses that pay taxes through their owners’ returns would cost a combined $3.4 trillion over 10 years. But Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center said that the changes to the plan’s standard deduction and to which tax breaks would be scrapped meant the group’s previous analysis was “no longer relevant.”Nonetheless, Williams said it’s a fair bet that the Trump plan would pile up more debt, even though there are a lot of details that need to be filled in. And that could cause problems for Republicans’ ability to pass the plan, at least on a permanent basis. Democrats aren’t expected to back a GOP tax overhaul, meaning that Republicans will likely have to rely on budget rules that allow them to pass fiscal measures with 51 votes in the Senate. But because of how those rules are structured, the GOP would also find it very difficult to pass anything that raises deficits outside a 10-year budget window — something which might eventually force the Trump administration to tone down their ambitions.Mnuchin reiterated Wednesday the administration's assertion that the tax plan would essentially pay for itself, though there are doubts that Congress’ official scorekeeper would see it that way. Who does it help?Corporations have for years said they are hamstrung by America’s top 35 percent corporate rate, which is among the highest in the industrialized world. The businesses that pay through individual side of the tax code, known as pass-throughs, have said for just as long that they want to pay the same rate as corporations. Both are likely to be thrilled with a 15 percent rate. And while the Trump administration only calls for a modest reduction in the top rate for individuals, many top earners — lawyers, doctors and hedge fund executives, for instance — would reap the benefit of the 15 percent rate for all businesses. That low rate would also likely help Trump and his family, as would potentially some other proposals in the president’s plan. Trump would scrap the AMT, which his leaked 2005 tax return shows cost him $31 million that year.The Trump administration has said that cutting taxes for the middle-class is one of its major goals, and Mnuchin vowed Wednesday that the average family would see their tax burden go down. But liberal fiscal analysts have long said that they believe Trump’s plans would raise taxes for many working-class families, largely by ending personal deductions, and that Wednesday’s update did little to change their thinking. What holes have to be filled?Lots and lots — and these are the kinds of details that can easily trip up a tax reform effort. Mnuchin and Cohn said Wednesday that the administration was still working through a lot of top-level details, including at which income levels to set their three individual tax rates and whether independent contractors would pay the 15 percent business rate. But there’s a lot more where that came from. On the territorial tax proposal, the administration would need to write rules to keep companies from stashing income offshore and away from the Treasury's reach. The House plan used the border adjustment for that purpose, but Mnuchin said Wednesday that provision needs improvements and the administration has yet to publicly offer any alternatives. Rules would also need to be written to keep taxpayers from gaming the 15 percent business rate, but Mnuchin would only say Wednesday that “what this is not going to be is a loophole for rich people.”

27 апреля, 00:38

A Comprehensive Guide to Donald Trump’s Tax Proposal

Who wins (the rich), who loses (anybody who doesn’t like deficits), and why it might take a miracle for the plan to become a law

26 апреля, 23:33

Most Americans Don't Want People To Buy Soda And Candy With Food Stamps

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); It should come as no surprise that Americans hold strong opinions about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, colloquially known as “food stamps.” But there appears to be more of a bipartisan consensus on the matter than heated rhetoric on the matter might suggest. According to a study released Wednesday by the Voice of the People, a nonpartisan polling group, and conducted by University of Maryland researchers, an overwhelming majority of American voters of both parties favor restricting SNAP benefits from being used to buy soda and candy, as well as incentivizing fruit and vegetable purchases and increasing the overall amount of SNAP benefits available. The study found that of the 7,000 voters polled, 76 percent of respondents agreed that SNAP benefits should not be used to buy candy. For Republican respondents 85 percent approved of banning the sweets, while 68 percent of Democrat respondents agreed. Poll respondents expressed a similar level of support — 73 percent — for banning SNAP recipients from using their benefits to buy soda. Eighty-two percent of Republican respondents and 67 percent of Democrats agreed with soda restrictions. Interestingly, an overwhelming majority — 88 percent — of respondents of both parties also favored the discounting of fruits and vegetables purchased using SNAP benefits. And about 80 percent of respondents favored increasing SNAP benefits under two separate scenarios that described a typical recipient’s benefit level that were presented by the pollsters. The scenarios included cases detailing recipients earning income less than $550 a month and for single mothers earning an income of $760 on average per month. Steven Kull, a senior research scholar at the University of Maryland and the the study’s director, said the bipartisan support for both restrictions and expansions of SNAP benefits didn’t particularly surprise him. Respondents heard detailed arguments from both sides of the issue prior to providing their own opinions, which appeared to reveal shared concerns for Americans living in poverty. “When you watch Congress, you get the impression the country is fundamentally polarized, and yet when you see what average citizens do when they get a chance to think an issue through, they actually do find a fair amount of common ground,” Kull told HuffPost. “It’s a lot more than Congress seems to find.” The study’s findings are timely in light of recent media coverage surrounding new research by the U.S. Department of Agriculture detailing what SNAP recipients buy with their benefits and how those purchases compared to non-SNAP shoppers. The federal data indicated that SNAP recipients purchased more soft drinks than any other category of grocery good, but also found that there were “no major differences” between what SNAP households purchased at the grocery store and what non-SNAP households bought. Nevertheless, outlets like The New York Times still went ahead with stories painting SNAP recipients as buying soda by the cartload, a characterization that SNAP experts widely panned and the Times’ public editor, Liz Spayd, seemed to agree was at least somewhat misleading. While the idea to shrink or otherwise restrict SNAP is not a new one, the new USDA report and its ensuing coverage seem to have inspired fresh scrutiny of the program. In February, the House Agriculture Committee convened a hearing considering the merit of new SNAP purchase restrictions. The hearing was one of dozens the committee has held as part of an ongoing review of SNAP. Lawmakers in some states — including Maine, Arkansas and Tennessee — are also moving forward with their own attempts to restrict SNAP purchases, and appear to be hopeful that the Trump administration will be more amenable to their efforts than the previous one. In Maine, state officials are requesting a waiver from the USDA that would allow the state to ban its SNAP recipients from purchasing candy and soda using the federal benefits. Under Obama, the USDA denied a similar waiver last year and the agency might do so again. The influential New York University nutrition professor Marion Nestle noted this week that Trump’s USDA is seeking more details about the state’s request. Federal law gives states hardly any leeway to tinker with eligibility standards for food stamps, so that’s why Maine and other states ask for waivers. But Republicans in Congress are using the Agriculture Committee’s hearings to lay the groundwork for eventual changes to SNAP, which could include giving states more freedom to modify the rules of the program. During the previous reauthorization, Republicans and Fox News made a mascot out of a San Diego food stamp recipient who used his benefits to buy lobster and had no shame. With nearly 43 million recipients, SNAP represents one of the federal government’s most significant anti-poverty programs, and congressional Republicans have frequently lamented growth in SNAP enrollment and spending over the last 15 years. Democrats have fiercely defended the program and criticized efforts to restrict food options or add drug tests as efforts to stigmatize poverty. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=582f4bd7e4b058ce7aaadea0,5773e3c9e4b0eb90355d008c,58cac50fe4b00705db4d1364,58b04d26e4b0658fc20f9423 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

26 апреля, 23:33

Most Americans Don't Want People To Buy Soda And Candy With Food Stamps

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); It should come as no surprise that Americans hold strong opinions about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, colloquially known as “food stamps.” But there appears to be more of a bipartisan consensus on the matter than heated rhetoric on the matter might suggest. According to a study released Wednesday by the Voice of the People, a nonpartisan polling group, and conducted by University of Maryland researchers, an overwhelming majority of American voters of both parties favor restricting SNAP benefits from being used to buy soda and candy, as well as incentivizing fruit and vegetable purchases and increasing the overall amount of SNAP benefits available. The study found that of the 7,000 voters polled, 76 percent of respondents agreed that SNAP benefits should not be used to buy candy. For Republican respondents 85 percent approved of banning the sweets, while 68 percent of Democrat respondents agreed. Poll respondents expressed a similar level of support — 73 percent — for banning SNAP recipients from using their benefits to buy soda. Eighty-two percent of Republican respondents and 67 percent of Democrats agreed with soda restrictions. Interestingly, an overwhelming majority — 88 percent — of respondents of both parties also favored the discounting of fruits and vegetables purchased using SNAP benefits. And about 80 percent of respondents favored increasing SNAP benefits under two separate scenarios that described a typical recipient’s benefit level that were presented by the pollsters. The scenarios included cases detailing recipients earning income less than $550 a month and for single mothers earning an income of $760 on average per month. Steven Kull, a senior research scholar at the University of Maryland and the the study’s director, said the bipartisan support for both restrictions and expansions of SNAP benefits didn’t particularly surprise him. Respondents heard detailed arguments from both sides of the issue prior to providing their own opinions, which appeared to reveal shared concerns for Americans living in poverty. “When you watch Congress, you get the impression the country is fundamentally polarized, and yet when you see what average citizens do when they get a chance to think an issue through, they actually do find a fair amount of common ground,” Kull told HuffPost. “It’s a lot more than Congress seems to find.” The study’s findings are timely in light of recent media coverage surrounding new research by the U.S. Department of Agriculture detailing what SNAP recipients buy with their benefits and how those purchases compared to non-SNAP shoppers. The federal data indicated that SNAP recipients purchased more soft drinks than any other category of grocery good, but also found that there were “no major differences” between what SNAP households purchased at the grocery store and what non-SNAP households bought. Nevertheless, outlets like The New York Times still went ahead with stories painting SNAP recipients as buying soda by the cartload, a characterization that SNAP experts widely panned and the Times’ public editor, Liz Spayd, seemed to agree was at least somewhat misleading. While the idea to shrink or otherwise restrict SNAP is not a new one, the new USDA report and its ensuing coverage seem to have inspired fresh scrutiny of the program. In February, the House Agriculture Committee convened a hearing considering the merit of new SNAP purchase restrictions. The hearing was one of dozens the committee has held as part of an ongoing review of SNAP. Lawmakers in some states — including Maine, Arkansas and Tennessee — are also moving forward with their own attempts to restrict SNAP purchases, and appear to be hopeful that the Trump administration will be more amenable to their efforts than the previous one. In Maine, state officials are requesting a waiver from the USDA that would allow the state to ban its SNAP recipients from purchasing candy and soda using the federal benefits. Under Obama, the USDA denied a similar waiver last year and the agency might do so again. The influential New York University nutrition professor Marion Nestle noted this week that Trump’s USDA is seeking more details about the state’s request. Federal law gives states hardly any leeway to tinker with eligibility standards for food stamps, so that’s why Maine and other states ask for waivers. But Republicans in Congress are using the Agriculture Committee’s hearings to lay the groundwork for eventual changes to SNAP, which could include giving states more freedom to modify the rules of the program. During the previous reauthorization, Republicans and Fox News made a mascot out of a San Diego food stamp recipient who used his benefits to buy lobster and had no shame. With nearly 43 million recipients, SNAP represents one of the federal government’s most significant anti-poverty programs, and congressional Republicans have frequently lamented growth in SNAP enrollment and spending over the last 15 years. Democrats have fiercely defended the program and criticized efforts to restrict food options or add drug tests as efforts to stigmatize poverty. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=582f4bd7e4b058ce7aaadea0,5773e3c9e4b0eb90355d008c,58cac50fe4b00705db4d1364,58b04d26e4b0658fc20f9423 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

26 апреля, 23:03

Briefing by Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin and Director of the National Economic Council Gary Cohn

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room  1:38 P.M. EDT MR. SPICER:  Never thought so many people would be turning out for the Antiquities Act, but thank you all for being here.  Obviously today we're here to talk about the President’s effort to provide tax relief to both our corporations that will help grow jobs, and to middle Americans.  Two people here to explain it, the Director of our National Economic Council, Gary Cohn, is going to walk through why we're doing what we're doing and then the personal side of the tax.  Then Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin will walk through the business side and the corporate side of what the President is doing to bring jobs back to this country, to make our businesses more competitive and help our economy grow. At the end, they’d be glad to take questions on this.  You are being provided a one-page right not that provides the top level aspects of the plan.  And then both the Director and Secretary will go into further detail and take your questions.   So without any further ado, Director Gary Cohn. DIRECTOR COHN:  Thank you, Sean.  And good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for being here.  This is quite an historic day for us and one that we've been looking forward to for a long time and one we're very excited about. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do something really big.  President Trump has made tax reform a priority, and we have a Republican Congress that wants to get it done.  And this is something that, quite honestly, I hope the Democrats would support, too, because it's good for the American people.  The President is going to seize this opportunity by leading the most significant tax reform legislation since 1986, and one of the biggest tax cuts in the American history.   We've been working on this for a long time.  We've had great meetings.  We had a great meeting last night with the leadership of the House and the Senate.  We have agreed on many of the important principles of tax reform.  We look forward to working together with the House and the Senate, very closely, in the weeks ahead. The President has focused on three things since his campaign -- job creation, economic growth, and helping the low- and middle-income families who have been left behind by this economy.  He understands there are a lot of people in this country that feel like they work hard and they just cannot get ahead.  They are sick of turning their paychecks over to Washington and having no idea of how those dollars are spent.  They are frustrated by a tax code that is so complicated they can't even do their own taxes.   That's why tax reform is such a big priority to this President.  He cares about making the economy work better for all American people. Here’s a little history.  When President Kennedy cut taxes in early 1960, the top rate of personal income was over 90 percent and there was rampant tax avoidance.  And then, 20 years later, President Reagan took rates down to 28 percent for individuals.  Since then, rates have been creeping back up and more loopholes and special interest tax breaks have made their way back into the tax code, disadvantaging average Americans. And then, on the business side, when President Reagan left office in 1988, the corporate tax rate was 34 percent, and it hasn't changed much since.  For the last 25 years, other countries have been aggressively cutting their tax rates and moving to a territorial system in order to attract business.  And the U.S. has done none of that.  In 2017, we are still stuck with a 1988 corporate tax.  That's why we're now one of the least competitive countries in the developed world when it comes to corporate tax.   So tax reform is long overdue.  We are going to cut taxes for businesses to make them competitive, and we're going to cut taxes for the American people, especially low- and middle-income families. Today I'm going to outline the principles we have put in place for personal tax reform, and then I'm going to hand it over to Secretary Mnuchin to talk about the business side.   First, here are a few statistics for you on the individual side.  In 1935, we had a one-page tax form consisting of 34 lines with two pages of instructions.  Today the basic 1040 form has 79 lines and 211 pages of instructions.  Instead of a single form, the IRS now has 199 tax forms on the individual side of our tax code.  Taxpayers spend nearly 7 billion hours complying with these tax codes every year.  And nearly 90 percent of taxpayers need some help in filing their taxes.   We are going to cut taxes and simplify the tax code by taking the current seven tax brackets we have today and reducing them to only three brackets -- a 10 percent bracket, a 25 percent bracket, and a 35 percent bracket.  We're going to double the standard deduction so that a married couple won't pay any taxes on the first $24,000 of income they earn.  So, in essence, we are creating a zero tax rate -- yes, a zero tax rate -- for the first $24,000 that a couple earns. The largest standard deduction also leads to simplification because far fewer taxpayers will need to itemize, which means their tax form can go back -- yes -- to that one simple page that I talked about earlier.   Families in this country will also benefit from tax relief to help them with child and dependent care expenses.  We are going to repeal the alternative minimum tax.  The AMT creates significant complications and burdens which require taxpayers to do their taxes twice to see which is higher.  That makes no sense, and we should have one simple tax code. As we all know, job creation and economic growth is the top priority of the administration.  Nothing drives economic growth like capital investment.  Therefore, we are going to return the top capital gains tax rate and dividend rate to 20 percent, repealing the harmful 3.8 percent Obamacare tax on dividends and capital gains.  That tax has been a direct hit on investment income and small business owners.   We're going to repeal the death tax.  The threat of being hit by the death tax leaves small business owners and farmers in this country to waste countless hours and resources on complicated estate planning to make sure their children aren't hit with a huge tax when they die.  No one wants to see their children have to sell the family business to pay an unfair tax. We're going to eliminate most of the tax breaks that are mainly benefits to high-income individuals.  Homeownership, charitable giving and retirement savings will be protected.  But other tax benefits will be eliminated. This isn't going to be easy.  Doing big things never is.  We will be attacked from the left and we will be attacked from the right.  But one thing is certain:  I would never, ever bet against this President.  He will get this done for the American people.   With that, I'm going to turn it over to Secretary Mnuchin to go through the business tax plan, and then we will both come back and take some questions. SECRETARY MNUCHIN:  Thank you, Gary.   So as Gary said, we've been working on this plan for a very considerable period of time.  And our objective is to make U.S. businesses the most competitive in the world.  Right now, we have a 35 percent corporate rate on worldwide income and deferral.  It is perhaps the most complicated and uncompetitive business rate in the world.  Not a surprise that companies leave trillions of dollars offshore.   Under the Trump plan, we will have a massive tax cut for businesses and massive tax reform and simplification.  As the President said during the campaign, we will lower the business rate to 15 percent.  We will make it a territorial system.  We will have a one-time tax on overseas profits, which will bring back trillions of dollars that are offshore to be invested here in the United States to purchase capital and to create jobs. The President is determined to unleash economic growth for businesses.  This is not just about large corporations.  Small and medium-size businesses will be eligible for the business rate as well.   As Gary said, we have had very productive meetings with the House and Senate, working weekly, to get this done.  We will continue to do that.  We are determined to move this as fast as we can and get this done this year.  I would also just comment that we will hold listening sessions.  One thing this President has done very well is listen.  We've had hundreds of business leaders here from all different types of areas -- manufacturers, retail, airlines, community banks, big banks.  We are listening and we have been taking feedback.   Finally, I would just add, the President’s objective is creating economic growth.  And as we've said before, we believe we can get back to 3 percent or higher GDP that is sustainable in this country.  The overall economic plan consists of massive tax cuts and tax reform, regulatory relief, and renegotiating trade deals.  And with that, we will unlock the economic growth that's been held back for too long in this country. And with that, we’d be both happy to take a few questions. Q    Thank you, Mr. Secretary.  When you talk about the individual tax rates you're also talking about eliminating some of the tax breaks.  Are you talking about eliminating tax deductions?  And which ones are you talking about eliminating, and which ones are you talking about keeping? SECRETARY MNUCHIN:  Correct, we are going to eliminate on the personal side all tax deductions other than mortgage interest and charitable deductions.  We think that will be sweeping reform. Q    Thank you, Secretary.  When you talk about lowering dividends and capital gains taxes, how does that mesh with what you said this morning about protecting the middle class from the very, very wealthy who might be able to take advantage of -- I don't know a better word than loopholes, but that would give them a lower tax rate? SECRETARY MNUCHIN:  Well, again, what we've said is that the business rate is going to be available for small and medium-size businesses as well as corporations.  However, we will make sure that there are rules in place so that wealthy people can't create pass-throughs and use that as a mechanism to avoid paying the tax rate that they should be on the personal side. And I would just say, on the dividend rate, we believe that restoring the 20 percent capital gains rate is critical to investment in this country. Q    Mr. Secretary, I have a similar question about your pass-throughs.  The initial plan that the President as a candidate outlined also included freelance or contract workers in that 15 percent.  I'm wondering if that's the same.  What’s your rate on repatriation funds overseas?   And, Gary Cohn, what about the marriage penalty?  The President promised he would eliminate that. SECRETARY MNUCHIN:  Again, I'd comment on the rate of repatriation.  We're working with the House and Senate on that, but I will say it will be a very competitive rate that will bring back trillions of dollars.  And as it relates to the definition of contractors and things along those lines, those will be the details we will be working with Congress on as we turn this into a bill that will get signed by the President. DIRECTOR COHN:  So as Secretary Mnuchin said, we are working very diligently with the House and the Senate on coming up with final details of the bill.  You're going into very micro-details on some of these -- Q    And very important ones. DIRECTOR COHN:  We agree, very important.  Our basic premise here is to simplify the tax system, lower rates, and make it easy.  We don't want to penalize people.  We want to make the system very fair.  That is one of the things on our list that we're going to work on, just as Secretary Mnuchin said.  We will get back to you with definitive answers on all these details. Q    On the 10, 25, and 35 percent rates, do you have income brackets established that you're going to propose? DIRECTOR COHN:  Again, we are in constant dialogue with the House and the Senate.  As the Secretary said, we're holding a bunch of listening groups right now.  We have outlines; we have a broad-brush view of where they’re going to be.  We're running an enormous amount of data on the proposals right now.  We will be back to you with very firm details.  We're very confident to where they’re going to be, we just wanted to get out and give you a broad-brush overview where we are. The President very much believes in taking input, as the Secretary said.  Over the next month, we've got a lot of discussions going with a lot of different groups very interested.   Q  When you said deductions, does that also mean state and local income taxes being eliminated -- those should be eliminated?  And how about healthcare? DIRECTOR COHN:  Yes. Q    How about healthcare? Q    Mr. Secretary, thank you.  And, Mr. Cohn, either one of you -- so when you talk about repealing the 3.8 percent Obamacare tax that hits small business and investment income, is this your first attempt -- official first attempt, I guess, with this to start to pulling back on Obamacare?  And also, what do you say to your fellow Republicans who say that this tax reform package is more about corporations versus cutting the deficit? DIRECTOR COHN:  This tax reform package is about growing the economy, creating jobs.  It's about the economy.  As I started, President Trump comes in every day and talks to the two of us about economic growth, economic prosperity, and jobs, and what are we doing to stimulate economic growth.  That's how we're looking at this plan.   The 3.8 percent tax on capital gains, dividends and interest -- the President looks at that very seriously as being a tax on capital being spent to stimulate economic growth, people putting investment capital to work, or people being taxed on their personal businesses.  So we're trying to get rid of that to be more stimulative, to have capital go back into the economy to create more jobs. Q    So it’s more business than Obamacare -- is it more business than a tax on Obamacare? DIRECTOR COHN:  It's business.  It's to stimulate business investment.  We are trying to stimulate business investment. Q    So on this, first of all, does it pay for itself?  Is this plan revenue-neutral?  And secondly, what in here is non-negotiable?  When this goes over to Congress, Congress comes back with a 20 percent corporate tax rate or -- will the President refuse to sign that? SECRETARY MNUCHIN:  Well, let me just say again, the core principles of this -- we've been meeting with the House and Senate and they agree a hundred percent.  The core business is make business rates competitive, bring back trillions of dollars to create jobs, simplify personal taxes, create a middle-income tax cut.  So those core principle are non-negotiable.  And that's something that we all feel strongly about. As it relates to will it pay for itself, again, I think as we've said, we're working on lots of details as to this.  We have over 100 people in the Treasury that have been working on tax and scoring lots of different scenarios.  This will pay for itself with growth and with reduced -- reduction of different deductions and closing loopholes. Q    Mr. Secretary, if it turns out that congressional estimates, when this has been scored -- if it turns out that it actually won't be paid for by growth, it won't keep deficits in check, is the President comfortable with that?  Will he sign something? SECRETARY MNUCHIN:  Well, let me just say again, when we look at the deficits, and the deficit has gone from $10 trillion to $20 trillion in the last administration, that is a problem and the President is concerned about that.  This plan is going to lower the debt-to-GDP.  The economic plan under Trump will grow the economy and will create massive amounts of revenues, trillions of dollars in additional revenues. Let’s go in the back. Q    If you don't replace some of the revenue with the border adjustment tax, how will you make up for the deficit   caused by the reduction in the corporate tax rate? SECRETARY MNUCHIN:  Well, again, today we're putting out the core principles, which include rates because we think that's a very important part of the plan.  We will be working very closely, as I said, with the House and the Senate to turn this into a bill that can be passed and the President can sign.  And there’s lots and lots of details that we're going into how that will pay for itself. Q    Mr. Secretary, territorial tax system -- is that a border adjustment tax?  Is it tariffs?  What is it? SECRETARY MNUCHIN:  A territorial tax system means that U.S. companies will pay income on income related to the U.S.  So it's territorial -- U.S. companies would not be subject to worldwide income, which has made them uncompetitive. Q    Are you concerned that perhaps the Republicans might not go along with this just like they didn’t fully go along with the Obamacare repeal -- SECRETARY MNUCHIN:  Again, I think that there is a lot of desire from everybody to pass tax reform.  As Gary said, we are at an historic moment, and Republicans and Democrats want to create jobs and want to help the American people.  And as I said, the core principles of this we have agreement on and we will work forward on the details. Q    Thank you, Mr. Secretary.  Quick question.  You bring up repeal of the death tax, the estate tax.  This is an issue that's been going on for decades.  And it used to be they were always talking about phasing out the death tax over a period of years.  Groups such as Jim Martin’s 60-Plus Seniors Association said they wouldn't accept it and wanted immediate killing of the death tax.  Is that what this is going to be?  Or is it going to be a phase-out measure again? DIRECTOR COHN:  Right now our initial proposal is to immediately phase out -- when this proposal becomes effective -- to phase out the death tax immediately. Q    You say “phase” and “immediate.” DIRECTOR COHN:  With the implementation of the new tax, the death tax would disappear. Q    Mr. Secretary, two questions.  One, this is obviously a statement of core principles -- it's just one page.  Obviously tax reform would be much more complicated.  When will we see the details?  When will we see the actual plan? SECRETARY MNUCHIN:  We are moving as quickly as we can.  So we are working with the House and Senate on all the details.  And this is -- everybody has an agreement we are going to move this as fast as we can.  And when we have an agreement we will release the details and go through it with all of you. Q    And my second question is, will the President release his tax returns so that -- SECRETARY MNUCHIN:  The President has no intention -- the President has released plenty of information and I think has given more financial disclosure than anybody else.  I think the American population has plenty of information on this -- Q    Mr. Secretary -- Q    Mr. Secretary -- Q    Don't the American people have a right to know how it will affect -- how this tax reform will affect him personally? SECRETARY MNUCHIN:  Excuse me, other people would like to ask questions. Q    My question is to either you, Mr. Secretary, or to Director Cohn.  You mentioned middle-class tax cuts -- middle-class families watching this tonight on the news -- a family of four, median income $60,000, what does it mean for them? DIRECTOR COHN:  It's going to be a tax cut.   Q    How much? DIRECTOR COHN:  Going to be a tax cut.  You're asking the same question that got asked over here.  We will let you know the specific details at the appropriate moment.  We are in very robust discussions with the Senate and with the House leadership.  They are progressing very quickly.  And we will continue to give you more details as we have them. Q    -- exactly a year ago then candidate Trump was asked if he believes in raising taxes on the wealthy.  He said, I do, I do, including myself, I do.  So my question is, why isn't he doing that?  And will the President end up paying more or less taxes as a result of this plan? SECRETARY MNUCHIN:  Let me just comment -- I can't comment on the President’s tax situation since I don't have access to that, okay?  But I would comment that our objective, okay, is the reduction in taxes will be offset by significant reduction of deductions in other items so that the effective tax rate is what we're focused on. Why don't we take one more question right here. Q    You might not have seen the President’s tax returns, but according to our estimations, by his 2005 returns that are out there, getting rid of the alternative minimum tax would save him $5.3 -- he would only have to pay $5.3 million in federal income taxes.  So your response to those critics who say a lot of what you presented here today could save the President or benefit his own businesses?   SECRETARY MNUCHIN:  Again, let me just comment, what this is about is creating jobs and creating economic growth.  And that's what massive tax cuts and massive tax reform and simplifying the system is what we're going to do.  The AMT is just another example of a third, complicated set of rules.   Anyway, thank you, everybody.  We appreciate you guys being here. END   2:00 P.M. EDT    

26 апреля, 23:00

Trump's Tax Proposal Would Be Ridiculously Good For Rich People

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump’s top economic advisers on Wednesday proposed trillions of dollars in tax cuts for millionaires under a plan billed as the biggest tax reform in over 30 years. In a one-page statement of “principles” for tax reform provided to reporters, the administration offered few specifics. They did insist on three major perks for the wealthy, however ― reducing the tax rate on stocks, bonds and real estate investments; eliminating inheritance taxes for millionaire heirs and heiresses; and bringing down the tax rate on the largest corporations to less than half of what it is now. The inheritance tax ― disparaged by conservatives as a “death tax” ― only applies to millionaires. Magnates must will at least $5.49 million to their heirs ($11 million for couples) to qualify for the tax. Heirs and heiresses pay an average rate of 16.6 percent on these inheritances, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, generating about $275 billion for the government over 10 years. Trump would also repeal the 3.8 percent tax on stocks, bonds and real estate investments that Obamacare imposed on individuals making at least $200,000 a year. A full 90 percent of this tax break would accrue to households making at least $700,000 a year, which would receive an average tax cut of $25,000 a year, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Corporate tax cuts also disproportionately favor the wealthy, because corporate profits flow to the owners of corporate stocks, who tend to be rich. More than 92.8 percent of households making at least $250,000 a year own at least $10,000 in stock, according to research from New York University economist Edward N. Wolff, compared with just 19.1 percent of households that earn $25,000 to $49,999. Households in the top 1 percent receive an average of 36 percent of their income from capital gains (stocks, bonds and other financial investments), according to the Congressional Budget Office, while those in the lowest 20 percent receive an average of about 5 percent of their income this way. Slashing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent would cost the federal government $2.4 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. The Trump team also said they want to “simplify” the number of tax brackets from seven to three, reducing the top rate from 39.6 percent to 35 percent. Trump’s team did not specify what income levels would apply to the new brackets, but fewer tax brackets typically result in lower taxes on upper-income individuals. They further said they would protect deductions for mortgage interest, a perk that disproportionately benefits the wealthy, delivering larger benefits to people who buy bigger houses. And Trump said he would double the standard deduction, which would exclude more household income from taxation. The 15 percent corporate tax rate would also apply to so-called “pass-through” corporations. Some pass-through corporations are small businesses. Others, however, are hedge funds, law firms, or vehicles for wealthy people to collect specialty income like book royalties. The plan would also eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, a move which would generally benefit the well-off. Other details of the tax plan will be hashed out in negotiations with Congress. The administration did not offer a legislative timeline for its tax agenda, which will almost certainly meet with staunch opposition from Democrats on Capitol Hill. Trump’s advisers claimed that economic growth of 3 percent would pay for the trillions of dollars in proposed tax cuts. It would not. Sign up for the HuffPost Must Reads newsletter. Each Sunday, we will bring you the best original reporting, long form writing and breaking news from The Huffington Post and around the web, plus behind-the-scenes looks at how it’s all made. Click here to sign up! -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

26 апреля, 23:00

Trump's Tax Proposal Would Be Ridiculously Good For Rich People

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump’s top economic advisers on Wednesday proposed trillions of dollars in tax cuts for millionaires under a plan billed as the biggest tax reform in over 30 years. In a one-page statement of “principles” for tax reform provided to reporters, the administration offered few specifics. They did insist on three major perks for the wealthy, however ― reducing the tax rate on stocks, bonds and real estate investments; eliminating inheritance taxes for millionaire heirs and heiresses; and bringing down the tax rate on the largest corporations to less than half of what it is now. The inheritance tax ― disparaged by conservatives as a “death tax” ― only applies to millionaires. Magnates must will at least $5.49 million to their heirs ($11 million for couples) to qualify for the tax. Heirs and heiresses pay an average rate of 16.6 percent on these inheritances, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, generating about $275 billion for the government over 10 years. Trump would also repeal the 3.8 percent tax on stocks, bonds and real estate investments that Obamacare imposed on individuals making at least $200,000 a year. A full 90 percent of this tax break would accrue to households making at least $700,000 a year, which would receive an average tax cut of $25,000 a year, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Corporate tax cuts also disproportionately favor the wealthy, because corporate profits flow to the owners of corporate stocks, who tend to be rich. More than 92.8 percent of households making at least $250,000 a year own at least $10,000 in stock, according to research from New York University economist Edward N. Wolff, compared with just 19.1 percent of households that earn $25,000 to $49,999. Households in the top 1 percent receive an average of 36 percent of their income from capital gains (stocks, bonds and other financial investments), according to the Congressional Budget Office, while those in the lowest 20 percent receive an average of about 5 percent of their income this way. Slashing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent would cost the federal government $2.4 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. The Trump team also said they want to “simplify” the number of tax brackets from seven to three, reducing the top rate from 39.6 percent to 35 percent. Trump’s team did not specify what income levels would apply to the new brackets, but fewer tax brackets typically result in lower taxes on upper-income individuals. They further said they would protect deductions for mortgage interest, a perk that disproportionately benefits the wealthy, delivering larger benefits to people who buy bigger houses. And Trump said he would double the standard deduction, which would exclude more household income from taxation. The 15 percent corporate tax rate would also apply to so-called “pass-through” corporations. Some pass-through corporations are small businesses. Others, however, are hedge funds, law firms, or vehicles for wealthy people to collect specialty income like book royalties. The plan would also eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, a move which would generally benefit the well-off. Other details of the tax plan will be hashed out in negotiations with Congress. The administration did not offer a legislative timeline for its tax agenda, which will almost certainly meet with staunch opposition from Democrats on Capitol Hill. Trump’s advisers claimed that economic growth of 3 percent would pay for the trillions of dollars in proposed tax cuts. It would not. CORRECTION: A previous version of this article misstated the estate tax exemption for 2017. It is $5.49 million, not $5.45 million. Sign up for the HuffPost Must Reads newsletter. Each Sunday, we will bring you the best original reporting, long form writing and breaking news from HuffPost and around the web, plus behind-the-scenes looks at how it’s all made. Click here to sign up! -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

26 апреля, 22:51

Presidential Executive Order on Enforcing Statutory Prohibitions on Federal Control of Education

EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - ENFORCING STATUTORY PROHIBITIONS ON FEDERAL CONTROL OF EDUCATION By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to restore the proper division of power under the Constitution between the Federal Government and the States and to further the goals of, and to ensure strict compliance with, statutes that prohibit Federal interference with State and local control over education, including section 103 of the Department of Education Organization Act (DEOA) (20 U.S.C. 3403), sections 438 and 447 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), as amended (20 U.S.C. 1232a and 1232j), and sections 8526A, 8527, and 8529 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (20 U.S.C. 7906a, 7907, and 7909), it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1.  Policy.  It shall be the policy of the executive branch to protect and preserve State and local control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, and personnel of educational institutions, schools, and school systems, consistent with applicable law, including ESEA, as amended by ESSA, and ESEA's restrictions related to the Common Core State Standards developed under the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Sec. 2.  Review of Regulations and Guidance Documents.  (a)  The Secretary of Education (Secretary) shall review all Department of Education (Department) regulations and guidance documents relating to DEOA, GEPA, and ESEA, as amended by ESSA.  (b)  The Secretary shall examine whether these regulations and guidance documents comply with Federal laws that prohibit the Department from exercising any direction, supervision, or control over areas subject to State and local control, including: (i)    the curriculum or program of instruction of any elementary and secondary school and school system;  (ii)   school administration and personnel; and  (iii)  selection and content of library resources, textbooks, and instructional materials.  (c)  The Secretary shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, rescind or revise any regulations that are identified pursuant to subsection (b) of this section as inconsistent with statutory prohibitions.  The Secretary shall also rescind or revise any guidance documents that are identified pursuant to subsection (b) of this section as inconsistent with statutory prohibitions.  The Secretary shall, to the extent consistent with law, publish any proposed regulations and withdraw or modify any guidance documents pursuant to this subsection no later than 300 days after the date of this order. Sec. 3.  Definition.  The term "guidance document" means any written statement issued by the Department to the public that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue or an interpretation of a statutory or regulatory issue, including Dear Colleague letters, interpretive memoranda, policy statements, manuals, circulars, memoranda, pamphlets, bulletins, advisories, technical assistance, and grants of applications for waivers. Sec. 4.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:   (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or  (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE, April 26, 2017.

Выбор редакции
26 апреля, 22:00

Twitter Results

Are being misjudged. Tomorrow the short-messaging social network will reveal its numbers and the analysts will gasp, the pundits will swoon, and everybody will say that Twitter needs to be fixed. But that’s not the truth at all. By Wall Street standards Twitter’s a diving joke. A company that’s hit a financial wall with no… Read More The post Twitter Results appeared first on The Big Picture.

26 апреля, 21:56

FCC chairman announces start of net neutrality pullback

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Wednesday unveiled his strategy to gut the Obama-era net neutrality rules by weakening his agency’s power over internet service providers, plunging his agency once again into a major policy battle pitting telecom giants against digital activists and tech companies.Pai’s proposal seeks to eliminate the regulatory foundation of the rules approved by the agency's previous Democratic majority in 2015 and jettison a general conduct standard giving the FCC authority to oversee ISP behavior. The net neutrality rules require providers like AT&T and Comcast to treat all web traffic equally as it passes through their networks.Supporters of the original rules say they give the FCC sufficient oversight over internet providers to prevent them from blocking or throttling web traffic or charging websites for faster access to consumers. But Pai called that approach heavy-handed regulation that has hurt broadband investment, and said his plan will return the industry to a time when the internet was allowed to grow.“For decades before 2015, we had a free and open Internet,” the chairman said in a speech at the Newseum in Washington co-hosted by FreedomWorks, a limited-government group. “Indeed, the free and open Internet developed and flourished under light-touch regulation. We were not living in some digital dystopia before the partisan imposition of a massive plan hatched in Washington saved all of us.”Pai intends to seek a commission vote on his proposal at the agency’s May 18 meeting. The move is sure to reignite the policy war that has raged for years between nation's telecom giants and activists that fear that ISPs, if left unchecked, will abuse their power as gatekeepers of the internet.Left-leaning advocacy groups and Democrats have promised a fierce fight to protect the current version of the rules. They point to the political fallout over Republicans’ repeal of the agency’s broadband privacy rules earlier this year, calling that a mere preview of the pain to come on net neutrality. Many progressives are deeply invested in the issue, having helped to generate a flood of comments to the agency during the last FCC debate."Millions of Americans as well as internet companies, startups and innovators have supported the order," David Segal, executive director of Demand Progress, said in a statement. "The order’s main opponents are large ISPs that have made it clear they want to subvert the public interest by manipulating internet traffic to benefit corporate bottom lines."Pai said his changes to net neutrality will spur companies to spend more money building networks and will restore the FTC’s authority to police ISP privacy practices. He said he intends to finish the rulemaking this year — and appeared to have no illusions about the resistance he'll face.“Make no mistake about it: This is a fight that we intend to wage and it is a fight that we are going to win,” Pai said.It’s unclear how the chairman will be able to preserve the FCC’s net neutrality role without grounding its rules in the regulatory structure, approved two years ago, that treats ISPs like telephone-style utilities, subjecting them to tighter oversight. The FCC lost a court battle over a previous version of the rules that did not employ that structure, but the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 2015 order last June in a 2-1 decision.Pai initially floated an idea to seek voluntary commitments from internet providers to adhere to net neutrality principles, under the purview of the FTC, but that concept appears to have fallen by the wayside amid a backlash from net neutrality activists. Even Pai's fellow GOP commissioner, Michael O’Rielly, who’s no fan of the current rules, expressed some skepticism about obtaining voluntary commitments from private companies.O'Rielly, who spoke at the same event as Pai, made a plea for lawmakers to get involved in the net neutrality issue."The only way to bring resolution to the net neutrality debate once and for all is for Congress to consider and enact legislation on the subject matter, as it deems appropriate," he said. "There can be no lasting peace until that happens."

23 июня 2014, 14:12

Standard & Poor.s: каковы основные риски для российской экономики

Невыплата долгов "Нафтогазом" не будет считаться дефолтом всей Украины. Тем не менее, страна может официально стать банкротом в ближайшие год - два. Такой прогноз озвучил Моритц Краемер - он возглавляет группу суверенных рейтингов Standard & Poor.s. Поможет ли Украине МВФ, что ждет российские госкомпании и как ответить на обвинения в политической ангажированности?