Showing posts with label Federal Tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Tax. Show all posts

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Who Feels the Tax Sting

Now that the massive new tax bill has passed, I thought I"d do a little experiment with a spreadsheet to see how a hypothetical Silicon Valley, California earner might be affected. I was sure his tax bill would be higher, but I am surprised at how much higher.I wouldn"t be surprised if some people decided not to stay in their homes since their tax bite is so substantial.


I will preface this by saying I"m not a tax expert, but I"ve got a pretty good understanding of taxes, and I put together a deliberately simplistic spreadsheet for this experiment. And while it may be simplistic, it still makes a powerful point, and the tiny amount of rounding error for an actual tax form won"t change the conclusion.


In this examination, I make the following assumptions:


  • The individual earns a very handsome salary of $500,000

  • He bought a $3 million house in Palo Alto (which is going to be a pretty decent but not opulent home). He has a $1 million mortgage at an interest rate of 4%.

  • He pays property tax of 1.2%

  • His state income tax rate comes in at 10% (California is actually 13.3%, but I"m making it a little lower to take into account lower income levels aren"t taxed as highly)

  • His blended federal income tax rate is 30% (again, the actual highest rate is 37%, which is the new rate, reduced from 39.6%, but for this experiment, I"m moving it down quite a bit)

So here is the spreadsheet. I want to stress this is extremely simplified (hey, almost a tax return on a postcard!) but here we go:


newsheet


In the left column, which is "pre-reform", this person has state income tax and property tax totaling $98,000, which he can used to offset income for the purposes of calculating federal income tax. In the right column, he is limited to $10,000. So suddenly he"s got an extra $88,000 in income which is taxed that wasn"t taxed before.


He"s already limited to deducting only the first $1 million of his mortgage, but even that drops down to $750,000 (we"re assuming his home purchase was after 12/15/2017, when the law changes).


So, in the end, his federal tax bill is $29,400 higher than it was. That isn"t small. That"s a nice new car. Or a year"s tuition at a private school. And it sure as hell isn"t tax "relief."


Now some of you who live in places with lower (or no) state income taxes or inexpensive real estate may be thinking, "Awww, fuck "em, those rich Californians." But this isn"t some scumbug Goldman Sachs managing director who is making tens of millions of dollars.


I also don"t have a personal ax to grind here. I bought my house so long ago, so cheaply, and I owe so little on it, that none of this applies to me personally. However, I think hardly any of those affected have any CLUE what is about to hit them. There is an enormous tidal wave heading toward huge masses of professionals in states like California, Washington, and New York that are about to have the rug pulled out from under their feet.


But, hey, what am I complaining about, with reassurances like this coming from the White House:


paycheck


Oh, and since I"m in the Silicon Valley.......



Our poor hypothetical taxpayer has one more indignity to suffer: between (1) rising interest rates (2) the loss of deductibility in state income taxes (3) the reduction of deductibility in mortgage interest (4) the loss of deductibility in property taxes..............his house is going to sink in value as it dawns on people how badly they"ve been screwed. So on top of massively higher expenditures to pay federal taxes (after all, SOMEONE has to pay for Bob Corker"s tax cuts!), he"s making payments on a diminishing asset.


Congratulations, America. You"re not even sure what"s hit you yet.

Monday, December 4, 2017

Elon Musk"s First Payload To Mars: His "Midnight Cherry Tesla Roadster Playing Space Oddity"

In late November, we reported on Elon Musk’s desperate attempt to boost market confidence with a shock and awe performance unveiling Tesla’s new semi-truck and roadster. While the event was a thriller, it appears the laws of physics may have finally caught up with Tesla’s stock - now in a bear-market from September highs.


Musk is undeniably the greatest snake oil salesman modern financial markets have ever seen, and that is why he is planning the next spectacular event before a further correction.



On Friday evening, Musk tweeted what the payload of the Falcon Heavy would be— his “midnight cherry Tesla Roadster playing Space Oddity”.


But the story gets better, because the powerful Falcon Heavy rocket will launch his Tesla into the orbit around Mars. Musk added, the Tesla “will be in deep space for a billion years or so if it doesn’t blow up on ascent.”



As Musk would say, the show must go on with the Falcon Heavy launch expected “next month” (January 2018) from Pad 39A at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. According to ARS Techinca, “a static fire test of the rocket’s three cores, and 27 engines, on the launch pad this month.”



In simplest terms, the Falcon Heavy is three of the company’s Falcon 9 rockets strapped together. It will then create enough lift as proposed by Musk to propel his Tesla out of low Earth orbit onto a trajectory to Mars. When it comes to timing— don’t take the company seriously. Musk has pushed back Falcon Heavy’s maiden flight more than once: it was originally planned for a summer launch but moved to November and now to January 2018.


Musk said, at a press conference in July, that the Falcon Heavy might not even make it to orbit on its first attempt to leave the atmosphere. That means the upcoming event could turn into a very expensive firework showing.


While the practical use for a Tesla roadster on Mars is still unknown, it would buy Musk some time to keep the stock elevated for perhaps a few more secondly offerings. If Musk is successful in this latest endeavor, it would signal that NASA’s ambitions to Mars could be fulfilled by a Falcon Heavy. So far, no private company has launched a rocket beyond low-Earth orbit, nevertheless to another plant.


Phil Larson, an assistant dean at the University of Colorado, and a former SpaceX official said, “the launch of the biggest rocket since the U.S. Moon booster is a game changer for our country’s space exploration future and for national security. The fact that development of such a capability is coming from U.S. industry is a very positive sign for our economic competitiveness.”


As we have highlighted before, the short thesis for Tesla (see: Jim Chanos Adds To Tesla Short, Sees Musk Stepping Down) explains the financial circumstances of why Musk is attempting to conduct the great show ever known to man through SpaceX, as it means the cross promotion would keep his scheme alive. In the mean time, the short theses build:


1. Negative Cash Flows



“If you can’t make money selling a $100,000 car to rich people, how are you going to make money selling a $45,000 car to normal people?” Rocker told The Times. He was referring to the upcoming mass-market Model 3. “I’m saying they’re going to lose money on every Model 3 they build and sell,” Spiegel said. Based on Tesla’s Q4 2016 earnings report, he figured the combined average selling price for non-leased Model S and X is about $104,000 and the combined average cost of building them about $82,000.


 


2. Competition from the Big Guys


Electric vehicles are still only a tiny fraction of total new vehicle sales in the US. Tesla sold about half of them. In March, according to Autodata, Tesla sold 4,050 vehicles in the US, similar to Porsche. All automakers combined sold 1.56 million new vehicles. This gave Tesla a market share of 0.26%. “Tesla faces a formidable set of competitors, and they’re coming in with guns blazing,” Wahlman told The Times. “Once the market is flooded with electric vehicles from manufacturers who can cross-subsidize them with profits from their conventional cars, somewhere around 2020 or 2021, Tesla will be driven into bankruptcy,” Spiegel said.


 


3. Tesla’s vanishing tax credits


The federal tax credit of $7,500 that EV buyers currently get is limited to 200,000 vehicles for each automaker. Once that automaker hits that point, tax credits are reduced and then phased out. Of all automakers, Tesla is closest to the 200,000 mark. Under its current production goals, the tax credits for its cars could start declining in 2018. This would give competitors, whose customers still get the full tax credit, a major advantage. About 370,000 folks put down a refundable $1,000 deposit on Tesla’s Model 3, perhaps figuring they’d get the $7,500 tax credit. But as it stands, many won’t. Rocker thinks that this is going to be an issue. The refundable deposit “commits them to nothing,” he said. Those that don’t get the tax credit may just ask for their money back and buy an EV that is still eligible for the credit.


 


4. The Question of patent protection


Tesla has made its patents available to all comers, thus lowering its patent protections against competitors. Also, the key part of an EV, the battery, is produced by suppliers; they, and not Tesla, own the intellectual property. This is true for all automakers. But Tesla might still be closely guarding crucial trade secrets that are not patented.


 


5. Musk’s distractions from his day job


Musk has a lot of irons in the fire: Tesla, SpaceX (with which he wants to build a colony on Mars or something), solar-panel installer SolarCity which Tesla bailed out last year; projects ranging from artificial intelligence to tunnel digging; venture capital activities…. “He’s all over the map, from tunneling to flights to Mars to solar roof tiles,” Rocker said. These announcements have the effect of boosting Tesla’s stock: “It’s ‘Let’s get the acolytes excited. Implant in the brain! Let’s buy Tesla stock!’”


 


6. Execution risk


“Investing is all about possibility and probability,” Yusko said. “Is it possible that Tesla will produce 500,000 cars in the next two or three years? Yes. Is it probable? No.” Tesla has missed many deadlines and goals, and quality problems cropped up in early production models. As Tesla is trying to make the transition to a mass-market automaker, execution risk will grow since mass-market customers are less forgiving.


 


7. Investor fatigue


Having lost money in every one of its 10 years of existence, Tesla asks investors regularly for more money to fill the new holes. In March, it got $1.2 billion. In May last year, it got $1.5 billion. Tesla will need many more billions to scale up production and to digest the losses. Tesla has been ingenious in this department. But when will investors get tired of it? “We’re awfully close to the point where people wake up and realize these guys are seriously diluting our equity” with new stock and convertible bond issues, Yusko said. According to The Times, Yusko “is looking for the moment when the true believers begin to lose faith.”


 


*Update


8. Emerging solid-state battery technology


Musk has invested a lot into his Gigafactory and technology producing lithium-ion batteries. The EV game is all about the best battery technology and a new threat has emerged using solid-state technology. If Tesla does not adopt to these new battery trends consumers would likely gravitate to EVs who posses such technology, because of the longer distance and shorter charge time.




 









Friday, December 1, 2017

Why Eliminating The State And Local Tax Deduction Is A Terrible Idea

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,


The tax "reform" currently being discussed in Washington is mostly a political exercise for politicians who can use the process to extract more campaign contributions from supporters, and punish non-supporters. The actual tax burden imposed on Americans overall will change little.



The proposed elimination of the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) is an excellent illustration of how the tax reform is really about playing political games. Forever in pursuit of "revenue neutral" tax reform, the GOP is simply turning to the elimination of the SALT deduction so it can raise federal revenues, and this allows for a tax cut for some other well-heeled special interest group. Using bizarre "logic," supporters of the deduction"s elimination claim that an increase in the federal tax burden will somehow lower state and local taxes — some day. Why? They imagine that if they raise federal taxes for people in states with high taxes (i.e., California, New York) then the majority of voters in those states will then be clamoring for a cut in state and local taxes. The GOP also relies on the tired claim that that a tax deduction (e.g., the home mortgage interest deduction) "subsidizes" those who claim the exemption. But only in the Orwellian world of Washington doublespeak is a tax break a "subsidy."  Moreover, given that states like California and New York are among the least reliant on federal funds, claiming that taxpayers there are "subsidized" by the rest of the country is an odd claim indeed.


There are several problems with this approach...


First of all, the SALT  deduction — like all federal tax increases —  will drive ever more tax revenues to the federal government, putting more power, both in relative terms and absolute terms, in the hands of the federal government. This is one reason federal tax increases are even worse than state and local tax increases. They skew political power in the US ever more toward the federal government. By increasing the federal government"s share of all tax revenues collected, the federal government will also then be in a better position to manipulate state governments and state policymakers with federal grants. The federal government does this today by using federal highway funds. As the old saying goes, "he who pays the piper calls the tune." 


An additional problem is that the elimination of the deduction is specifically aimed at increasing federal power at the expense of state and local power. There is no doubt that some conservatives and libertarians will cheer this. For many of them, the federal government and the county government are pretty much the same thing. In their minds, a Congress of out-of-touch millionaires 2,000 miles away is more or less the same thing as — or maybe even preferable to — a cash-strapped local government headed by middle-income part-time legislators.


This naive attitude is totally understandable for those who have never witnessed the very real differences between Washington politics and the politics of the local city council. But, there is a reason that subsidiarity and decentralization in politics have long been foundational elements of libertarian ideologies. Decentralization weakens political institutions, increases options for taxpayers, and contributes to a more vibrant private sector. 


The GOP"s efforts at eliminating the state and local tax deduction works in the opposite direction. The reform"s likely effect will be to further federalize the tax burden while making states more reliant on federal programs and federal grants. 


Americans Pay Most of their Taxes to the Federal Government 


At the core of the GOP"s drive to eliminate the SALT deduction is the assumption that state and local taxes are "too high" while federal taxes are apparently either just right, or even too low.  


But, it"s hard to see how anyone could come to the conclusion that the federal tax burden is the more harmless piece of the puzzle. The federal government already — by far — receives the largest share of the tax revenue pie.



revenues1.png


If we look at how much Americans pay to each level of government, we find that the federal government receives approximately two-thirds of all tax revenue, while only one third goes to state and local governments — combined.


In 2016, the federal government collected more than $3.4 trillion dollars in revenue via income taxes, customs duties, fees, and revenues from federally-owned lands. 


State governments, on the other hand, collected only $1.1 trillion in revenues. Local governments pulled in even less, with under $800 billion in revenues.


What the GOP is now telling us is that the federal government"s huge share of the pie is too small, and federal revenues ought to be increased further via elimination of the deduction. This, we"re then told, will lead to declines in state and local taxes. 


The GOP doesn"t mention, naturally, that state and local governments are already falling in their share of overall tax collections. 


During the current economic expansion, the share of local tax collections — as a percentage of all tax collections — dropped from 17 percent to 15 percent. State tax collections meanwhile dropped from 22 percent to 20 percent. The federal government"s share of the pie, however, increased from 60 percent to 64 percent. 


The federal government now controls nearly two-thirds of all revenues paid into governments in the United States, and if current trends continue, we may soon see the feds in control of 70 percent, or maybe even three-fourths of all tax revenue. 


If this is the GOP"s plan, this is a rather odd position to take for a political coalition that claims to be in favor of "local control" and decentralization and federalism. In reality, the outcome of this war on the SALT deduction is to make the American political system even more dominated by federal power. 


Federal Revenues vs. State Revenues 


Even in high-tax states, the federal government plays a disproportionately large role in tax collection.


If we compare state tax collections to IRS collections in each state, we find that taxpayers pay much more to the federal government than they pay to the state government. 



taxrev1_0.png


In California, for example, the federal government collects $405 billion from California taxpayers. The state government, meanwhile, collects $155 billion. Federal revenues in California are more than two-and-a-half times as large as state-level revenues. 


In many states, of course, the results are even more lopsided. 


In Minnesota, for example, federal revenues are more than four times the size of state revenues. In Colorado, federal revenues are more than three times the size of state revenues. 


We don"t have data on specific local revenues here, but given that local revenues make up only 15 percent of tax collections nationwide, its a safe bet that federal taxes are considerably larger than local revenues in most cases. 


And yet, to hear the GOP tell it, its state and local taxes that are imposing the real burden on Americans. Their solution? Pay more taxes to the federal government! 


Decentralize the Taxes 


None of this is to say that state and local taxes are a good thing. There is no shortage of waste, corruption, and cronyism at the state level — but compared to the federal government the dollar amounts are tiny in state-level boondoggles. 


Nevertheless, the diversity of tax regimes across states and localities has long been one of the good things about the relatively decentralized political system in the United States. 


As we"ve already been seeing, this reality has allowed countless productive Americans to vote with their feet and to move from high tax jurisdictions to low tax ones. This phenomenon thus imposes pressure on many jurisdiction to keep taxes low compared to other nearby jurisdictions. This is known as "tax competition" and it results only when states and localities have considerable autonomy over their tax rates.


Unfortunately, tax competition is restrained by the fact that tax revenues in the United States are primarily a federal matter. Taxpayers thus have far less power to change their tax fortunes by moving across state lines that would be the case in a truly decentralized system. 


The downside to local autonomy, of course, is that some states and localities will have especially high taxes. The solution to this, of course, is to avoid investing in those areas until tax competition is sufficient to force more restraint on tax rates. 


Raising federal revenues via eliminating the SALT deduction — as the GOP seeks to do — is hardly any sort of solution at all. Indeed, Congress should be moving in the opposite direction. Instead of eliminating the deduction, Congress should substitute a tax credit instead. Every dollar that state and local taxes increase would lead to an equal drop in federal taxes. Then, we might start to see some real diversity in tax burdens across the United States. 


In reality, we"re seeing quite the opposite. Our current situation is made worse as federal taxes make up a larger and larger share of the overall American tax burden. This leads to greater homogenization of tax rates across the United States, which makes it even harder to escape from especially bad tax policy. If the tax burden is ever "equalized" across all states, then taxation will all simply be equally bad nationwide, and moving across state lines will bring no relief.









Friday, November 24, 2017

Just 10 Companies Account For 33% Of All Market Gains Since Trump"s Election

Yesterday we laid out the reasons why French bank SocGen unveiled a surprisingly contrarian forecast, according to which the S&P would tumble from its current level over 2,600 to 2,000 in 2018, representing a more than 20% bear market drop...



... the drop catalyzed by rising interest rates pressuring P/E multiples, a late cycle economy nearing recession, equities trading at record valuations, and with everyone short vol begging for a vol short squeeze. Not surprisingly, SocGen"s unspoken advice was to get out now.


And while many of the negative factors highlighted by SocGen had already been discussed here in the past, there were two we warned to bring attention to: the market"s multiple expansion since Trump"s election, and the narrow leadership in the S&P.


As we noted yesterday, contrary to the widely accepted narrative, while the S&P 500 has risen 24% since Trump"s election, only half of this performance has been driven by earnings growth; the other half is from P/E expansion. But why would P/Es rise at a time when the Fed is tightening? As SocGen speculated, assuming that analysts have not factored tax reform into their earnings forecasts, tax reform expectations have been the driver of P/E expansion. There is a problem with this: while the S&P 500 index tax rate is currently 26.6%, assuming that US companies generate 43% of their profits abroad (here) and pay 35% of their US profits on taxes (i.e. with no loopholes for US profits), the average tax rate outside the US would be 15.5%. A decrease in the US tax from 35% to 20% as planned by Trump’s tax reform would thus theoretically boost earnings by 8.5%. The 12-month forward P/E has risen 12% over the last 12 months. In other words, roughly 150% of Trump"s tax cuts have been priced in!



However, another especially interesting observations goes to the leadership of this 24% rally since Trump"s election, which - while hardly a surprise - was largely driven by a handfull of companies, or ten to be precise.


As SocGen calculates, just 10 contributors of the S&P 500’s bull run have accounted for 33% of the S&P 500 performance. Tying to the above, the bank also points out that all of the companies listed below have seen their P/Es expand over the last 12  months, in some cases - like Nvidia, WalMart, Boeing and Amazon - dramatically. In fact, only three companies (Apple and the two banks) have 12-month P/Es that are below the market average (18x). Lastly, keep in mind that except Amazon, all of the companies already pay a  corporate tax rate below the current US federal tax rate (35%), and five companies even pay a tax rate that is below the 20% rate targeted by Trump’s tax reform.



As we asked two days ago when we showed that the bulk of hedge funds gains in 2017 have come from holding this same handful of companies, what happens to hedge fund performance - and the S&P 500 - when, for whatever reason, the tide turns and the winners are the first to be sold?









Thursday, November 23, 2017

Taxes: Here"s What"s Going To Stay The Same

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,


On October 3, 1913, US President Woodrow Wilson signed the Underwood-Simmons Act into law, creating what would become the first modern US income tax.



The legislation (at least, the income tax portion) was only 16 pages and imposed a base tax rate of just 1%.


The highest tax rate was set at 7%– and it only applied to individuals earning more than $500,000 per year, which is about $12.6 million today according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.


And individuals earning less than $3,000 (about $75,000 today) were exempt from paying tax.


Tax rates moved up and down over the years– the government raised rates to fund World War I, then lowered them in peacetime.


In fact, taxes were cut at least four separate times during the 1920s alone, reaching a low in 1929 of just 0.375% for the bottom tax bracket.


Back then, making major changes to tax law was pretty simple. Today, thanks to heavily vested interests on all sides, it takes a miracle to make any serious modifications to the tax code.


That’s why there hasn’t been any significant tax reform in the Land of the Free since Crocodile Dundee was the #1 movie in America (that’s 1986, by the way).


There are now two versions of legislation that will make major changes to the US tax code– one in the Senate and one in the House of Representatives.


I spent most of the nearly 30 hours of travel time during flights over the past week from Santiago to Sydney, Sydney to Bangkok, and Bangkok to Singapore, reading the proposals’ 400+ pages.


The media is touting these bills as a ‘major overhaul’ and ‘comprehensive reform,’ and financial markets have been treating this legislation as if the second coming of capitalism is walking across the water.


It’s not.


Sure, there are a few significant changes.


They’re scrapping the idiotic Alternative Minimum Tax, which ensnares more and more people each year.


Tax rates on certain business profits are going down substantially.


And they’re making tax reporting a lot simpler, saving countless hours of senseless paperwork.


Undoubtedly there are plenty of positive changes in this proposed tax code.


There are also plenty of negative changes.


Some people will benefit. Others will see their tax bills grow.


But for the most part the tax code will stay the same– they’re essentially just rearranging the pieces on the board rather than coming up with an entirely different game.


The existing tax code is built on a legal framework that goes back to the 1950s… a time when manufacturing and agriculture were economic mainstays.


Businesses rarely outsourced their production back then or even thought about selling their products overseas.


Entrepreneurship was uncommon. Employees often remained with the same company for decades. And few women were in the labor force.


Today it’s completely different. The digital economy has displaced manufacturing; business is now dominated by ideas, not factories.


And it’s easier than ever before in human history to start a business, sell products and services worldwide, and even hire employees who live on the other side of the planet.


It seems ludicrous to govern the digital, global businesses of the 21st century with such an antiquated, industrial-era tax code.


True reform would have started by throwing all of it in the garbage, right where it belongs.


You wouldn’t even have to reinvent the wheel; there are plenty of great examples in the world of tax systems that work extremely well– like right here in Singapore.


Singapore’s government is awash with cash.


They almost always run a small budget surplus, yet they’re able to provide ample public services, world class health care, high quality education, strong national defense, pristine infrastructure, and a substantial reserve fund.


But at the same time they encourage people to become wealthy, ensuring that they keep the vast majority of what they earn.


Tax rates in Singapore are quite low and incredibly competitive. Whereas the US corporate tax rate may drop to as low as 20%, in Singapore a company pays no more than 17%, and typically less than 10%.


Right now I’m in the process of negotiating the sale of an asset we purchased here a couple of years ago which will likely produce several million dollars in net realized gains once the deal is closed.


But we won’t pay a dime of tax here on any of it… because Singapore does not tax capital gains.


It’s a model that works: Singaporeans have one of the highest standards of living in the world… plus there are more millionaires per capita here than in any other country.


And this country is just one example. There are plenty more.


Point is, while it’s nice that they’re trying, it’s going to be very difficult for the US government to achieve anything meaningful or truly revolutionary when they’re essentially just making some changes to the pitifully outdated, existing tax code.


But the good news is that, even though the euphoria and expectations about this new proposal are totally overblown, there are still plenty of gems from the current tax code that aren’t going anywhere.


For example– if you’re a self-employed professional and you’re worried that the new tax code will probably increase your tax bill, you still have some excellent options.


There’s nothing in the proposed law that changes, for example, the substantial tax benefits you can realize from establishing a solo 401(k) or SEP IRA plan.


Nor did I see anything changing the enormous benefits from setting up a captive insurance company (in which you effectively insure yourself against certain risks, shielding up to $2 million per year from taxation).


Those are still fully intact.


So is the US federal tax exemption for certain legal residents of US territories. Which means that you can still qualify for Puerto Rico’s ultra-generous 0%/4% tax incentive programs.


There are dozens of other great tax strategies from the old tax code which will remain.


To continue learning how to legitimately reduce your taxes, I encourage you to download our free Perfect Plan B Guide.









Monday, November 13, 2017

The Whiskey Rebellion: How Brand New America Tore Up The Bill of Rights

Via The Daily Bell


223 years ago today, “The Dreadful Night” occurred in Western Pennsylvania, after an uprising called The Whiskey Rebellion.


The United States was brand new. Soldiers who had fought for independence from Great Britain found themselves on opposite sides of a skirmish. Some were having their rights violated practically before the ink was dry on the Bill of Rights. Other Veterans of the Revolution were doing the oppressing at Alexander Hamilton’s behest.


The Whiskey Rebellion saw farmers stand up to an unfair tax handed down by the federal government, and the government responded with the force of a monarchy. It may have all sprung from Alexander Hamilton’s desire for glory. Or Hamilton, the first Secretary of Treasury, may have had other motives for setting the precedent of force which still lives on today.


It all started after the Revolution, in 1791, when the federal government was in debt, and had no official money. The notes they paid to soldiers were worth fractions of what was promised, but many had no choice but to accept the funds and go home in order to try to survive.


But the soldiers were not the only ones who needed to be paid after the war. There were a number of rich investors and bankers who had provided the capital needed to win the Revolution. They too were awaiting repayment.


Alexander Hamilton had a better relationship with these financiers than with the soldiers. Hamilton was one of the leading banking figures of the time. He proposed a tax which would have two purposes. The tax would raise the revenue necessary to pay back the wealthy financiers of the Revolution. But the tax would also bring under the jurisdiction of the federal government a group of pioneers living in rural western Pennsylvania. The tax was to be levied on the production of whiskey, and not just at a commercial level. Everyone who made whiskey owed the tax. This would be the first federal tax on domestic goods.


This was a problem for the people of western Pennsylvania. Most people in this area used whiskey as a currency. Whatever surplus grain a family had would be converted into whiskey in order to preserve it. Whiskey would still have the calories of grain and was drank by almost everyone. It could be used for preserving and making some medicines.


Whiskey didn’t spoil, was widely used, and easy to transport. This made it an ideal currency. No need for banks, no need for paper money the worth of which can be manipulated. These people had tangible goods with intrinsic value absent of government mandate.


But Alexander Hamilton and the federal government insisted that the tax on whiskey be paid in coin.


For western Pennsylvanians, this amounted to an income tax. But even worse, now they had to find a way to convert their whiskey into coin. They had no use for coin since they used whiskey as a currency. But now the federal government would require them to use more time and effort just to pay the tax.


But it gets worse. Producers of whiskey were given a choice. They could pay a flat tax or pay a per gallon price. For commercial distillers who produced a lot of whiskey, the flat rate was cheaper than the per gallon rate. But for individuals, the per gallon rate was cheaper.


This was a political reward that Hamilton gave to commercial whiskey distillers in the area. They would now have the cheapest whiskey available since the flat tax worked out to a lower per gallon rate than home-distillers were forced to pay.


Hamilton did this to gain a foothold of support in the area (his enforcer was a large scale distiller) and to convert the economy of western Pennsylvania away from a whiskey-based currency. The sooner everyone was brought under the jurisdiction of the federal government, the sooner the government could raise money to pay for spending.


The tax destroyed the way of life for your average rural Pennsylvanian. First, they were singled out for a tax that most city dwellers would not be affected by. Next, they were forced to find a way to earn coin in order to pay the tax. Then, the tax made their whiskey more expensive compared to commercial distillers. This meant it was harder to sell, making it harder to convert the whiskey into coin to pay the tax.


Many people from this area moved out west to avoid the intricacies of society and government. Some were veterans of the Revolution. They would not accept this tax.


They were outraged that this tax was levied against them while the Northwest Indian War was going badly for the U.S. making the area unsafe. Seeing the tax as an advantage to grain growers (who owed no tax) and big distillers in the east (who owed a flat rate) also fueled western Pennsylvanian’s anti-federal sentiment.


They decided that if this was the way the new country was to treat its people, they wanted no part in it. They refused to pay the tax and served vigilante justice to tax collectors and other sympathizers of the federal government. They reacted similarly to how the United States reacted to unfair British taxes which sparked the Revolution.


By 1794 the climax of the situation unfolded. A U.S. Marshall was sent to the area and a showdown ensued. Some rebels were shot in a skirmish and their leader, a veteran of the Revolution, was killed. The tax collector and U.S. Marshall were captured only to later escape, and the fury of western Pennsylvanians peaked.


There was talk among the rebels that they should secede from the United States and form their own country. The plan that emerged was a watered down version of protest in which the rebels would march through Pittsburgh nonviolently. This was meant to send a message that they would not back down against what they saw as Hamilton’s attempts to pay back the wealthy by taxing the ordinary citizen.


President George Washington decided it was time to send in the army. A commission he sent to western Pennsylvania returned and recommended using the military to enforce the tax laws, and restore order.


By October 1794 Washington was seeing troops off, and heading back east, much to the dismay of some moderate locals including Congressman William Findley. He saw Washington as a fair president who just wanted to do what was right. Alexander Hamilton was the real force behind the army heading west, according to Findley, who was included on Hamilton’s list of possible rebels to be arrested.


Hamilton went with the army of nearly 20,000 as a civilian adviser. He was instructed by Washington to maintain the utmost discipline among the troops. As they advanced toward their target in western Pennsylvania, Hamilton was to prevent any breach of law by the troops, such as pillaging the countryside.


Officers harshly punished any soldier caught stealing, but the soldiers were doing so because of the lack of rations and clothing. Hamilton decided to solve this by making the theft of these goods legal. According to William Hogeland in his book The Whiskey Rebellion:


The quartermaster corps, [Hamilton] announced, would impress civilian property along the way. Now families watched helplessly as bayonet-wielding soldiers–no longer freelancing thieves but officials, authorized by the president–commandeered hard-won winter supplies of grain, meat, firewood, and blankets on behalf of the government of the United States. A steady, freezing rain meant the arrival of winter. Families whose sustenance was carted away faced grim months ahead (218).



Once the army and Hamilton finally arrived at the target county in western Pennsylvania, they contonued their oppression. They did not care much to follow the due process laid out in the Bill of Rights in new Constitution, despite Hamilton’s assurances to the President.


Many residents had signed oaths of support for the U.S. government. By signing, they risked local vigilante justice. But the U.S. promised that they would be pardoned as punishment was served to the region for failing to pay the new tax, and leading an insurrection against officials of the federal government.


These oaths were ignored and many who had signed them were arrested by Hamilton and the army anyway. A month earlier the first arrests of a few rebels had been made, prompting the most guilty among the rebels to flee. Anyone left in western Pennsylvania had minimal roles in the insurrection, and had certainly not led it. The most violent rebels, who had committed the worst acts against government officials, had already fled.


“The Dreadful Night” began in the middle of the night on November 13, 1794. Hamilton had created three lists of people: those who were not to be arrested, those who would be arrested, and those who were to be brought in as witnesses for questioning. The first list was not provided to the generals. Hamilton gave them the authority to arrest anyone they suspected of having participated in the rebellion, aided the rebels, raised liberty poles, or robbed the mail. He also authorized the troops to arrest local officials who failed to suppress the insurrection. The officers and soldiers who were passed these orders were delighted to finally have some excitement and authority on this trip west.


One particularly unstable officer named White was put in control of  the 40 prisoners which Hamilton thought would give the most valuable intelligence on the whole situation. These prisoners “were brought to a dark log structure” where they were tied up and seated on the muddy floor, and guarded by soldiers instructed to keep the prisoners away from the warmth of the fire. The tavern keeper was told he would be killed if any prisoners received food, and thus for more than two days the sadistic officer in charge:


…starved and dehydrated his shivering, exhausted captives, steadily cursing and castigating them, glorying in their helplessness and describing their imminent hanging. Even White’s troops became concerned about the captives who seemed barely alive (222).



The prisoners were then marched 12 miles in bad weather to be held in another jail, still without being charged with any crime. Following interrogation, most of them were eventually released without any criminal proceedings. This was unsurprising since most of those arrested were indeed innocent.


The arrests and brutality went on for several days throughout western Pennsylvania. This served as a reminder to all residents not to speak out against the federal government. Hamilton made it clear to the presiding judge that regardless of innocence, a good number of detainees would need to be marched back to Philadelphia in order to give the impression that the federal government had accomplished its goal, and put down a violent, unjustified rebellion. The judge held a number of rebels for trial even with what he considered lack of evidence, fearing that the army would revolt if too many prisoners were let go.


The prisoners that remained in custody were marched back to Philadelphia with great show in order to create the illusion of glory. It was essentially a photo op for Hamilton and Washington, who could now say, see, look what we did, look at the problems we solved. The prisoners were paraded on Christmas Day 1794 before 20,000 Philadelphians.


It was a disappointing show to the spectators who knowing that thousands of rebels had marched against the government, were surprised to see only twenty prisoners. Twelve cases went to trial, and two rebels were convicted. The rest weren’t released until 1796. They were left to find their way home if they could afford it. The whiskey tax remained hard to collect until it was repealed in 1801 by President Thomas Jefferson.


From the beginning of this country, the federal government has not been very good at abiding by the Constitution. Clearly, the due process rights of most of the “rebels” arrested were violated. Also violated were the rights of the farmers whose food and property was confiscated along the way in order to supply the army.


Cruel and unusual punishment was used on the prisoners, prior to them even being charged. What a precedent to set at the birth of a “free” country. They tore up the Bill of Rights before the ink had time to set.


With Hamilton’s broad presence in the foundation of the country’s banking and finances, is it any wonder that his vision has led us to where we are today? The government still uses taxes to give some businesses an advantage. The government still levies taxes which are meant to change the way citizens live their lives.


But remember that the government still found it hard to enforce and collect the whiskey tax. And today we can arrange our lives in a similar fashion, and make it difficult for the government to collect their unfair taxes. Let the spirit of rebellion inspire you.









Monday, October 30, 2017

Paul Manafort Indicted On 12 Counts In Mueller Probe, Surrenders To FBI

 Update: President Trump on Monday called for the focus to be shifted to Hillary Clinton after his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort turned himself into the FBI after being indicted on 12 counts, including conspiracy against the United States."Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren"t Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????" Trump tweeted. "Also, there is NO COLLUSION!"


Update: Sources close to the White House have released what appears to be an unofficial statement: "This has nothing to do with the White House."


The statement alludes to the fact that Manafort"s alleged misdeeds took place before he joined the Trump campaign.



Update: Messages of support from Republican Congressmen for the Mueller probe are beginning to trickle in...




Update: In an apparent attempt to pre-empt criticism of the Mueller probe from President Trump, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have both released statements defending the investigation...



 



Update: The Justice Department has released the Manafort/Gates indictment. The indictment contains 12 counts total, and the big one appears to be conspiracy against the US. They are also facing charges of tax fraud, money laundering and giving false statements.


The two men are expected to appear in court at 1:30 am ET.


In total more than $75,000,000 flowed through Manafort"s offshore accounts, according to the Mueller indictment. Manafort allegedly laundered more than $18 million which was used by him to buy property, goods and services in the US, income that he concealed from the US Treasury, the DOJ and others. Gates was instrumental in helping Manafort move the money form his illict foreign accounts into the US, and eventually transferred more than $3 million to accounts he controlled.


According to the indictment, between at least 2006 and 2015, Gates and Manafort acted as unregistered agents of the Government of Ukraine, the Party of Regions (a Ukrainian political party whose leader Victor Yanukovych was President from 2010 to 2014), Yanukovych, and the Opposition Bloc (a successor to the Party of Regions that formed in 2014 when Yanukovych fled to Russia). The two men generated tens of millions of dollars in income as a result of their Ukraine work. In order to hide Ukraine payments from United States authorities, from approximately 2006 through at least 2016, they laundered the money through scores of United States and foreign corporations, partnerships, and bank accounts.


Manafort and Gates used money from their Cyprus accounts to finance lavish lifestyles. Manafort spent more than half a million dollars of it on clothes from stores in Beverly Hills, and $20,000 on housekeeping. Gates spent the money on his mortgage, personal expenses, tuition payments and  an interior decorator for his Virginia home.



  Read the indictment in its entirety below, whose highlights are below, courtesy of Bloomberg:  


  •    Both men hid their work for the former Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovych, his Party of Regions and the Ukrainian government from 2006 “through at least 2016,” according to the indictment.

  • Manafort alone laundered more than $18 million to finance what the indictment called his “lavish lifestyle,” which included millions of dollars in real estate, luxury cars, antiques, clothing, landscaping services and home improvements. He also defrauded banks that loaned him money, prosecutors said, and failed to file reports to the Treasury Department declaring ownership of foreign bank accounts.

  • After news reports surfaced in August 2016 about Manafort’s work in Ukraine, he and Gates “developed a false and misleading cover story” to distance themselves from their activities, the indictment said. This included “false and misleading letters” in November 2016 and February 2017 to the Justice Department, which was trying to determine whether they had acted as “foreign principals” under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Prosecutors charged them with false statements for those two letters.

  • They lobbied members of the U.S. Congress and worked with two other Washington lobbying firms, identified in the indictment only as Company A and Company B, according to the indictment. Manafort and Gates directed the work of those firms on Ukraine and paid them more than $2 million from the offshore accounts, it said.

  • To hide their assets, the men controlled dozens of business entities in Cyprus, Grenadines and the U.K. that masked their ownership, the indictment said. They also owned U.S. entities in Delaware, Virginia and Florida.

  • Prosecutors seek the forfeiture of four Manafort properties, including a Brooklyn brownstone, a Lower Manhattan condominium, and homes in Arlington, Virginia, and eastern Long Island.

* * *


Update: The Washington Post reports that Manafort was seen entering the FBI"s Washington field office Monday.


* * *


Update: Manafort has been hit with several charges, including tax fraud, WSJ reported. He"s expected in federal court in Washington later Monday, a person familiar with the matter said. Meanwhile, Rick Gates is also reportedly turning himself in.


* * *


Update: CBS News confirms a photojournalist has captured images of Manafort leaving his home this morning with his lawyer.



*  *  *


Surprise, surprise. The New York Times is reporting that the first indictment in Special Counsel Robert Mueller"s probe into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia has been unsealed.


And the target is none other than Paul Manafort, who briefly served as chief executive of the Trump campaign last summer before reports about his work for Ukraine"s former leader Viktor Yanukovich forced him out. Manafort has reportedly been asked to surrender by the FBI, sparing him an embarassing perp walk.


Manafort"s former deputy Rick Gates has also been asked to surrender.


The charges against the pair weren"t immediately clear. But they do represent an escalation in the probe that has loomed over President Trump"s first year in office.


Gates is a longtime protege and junior partner at Manafort"s firm. His involvment in the probe was revealed in the spring. His name appeared in documents linked to a Cypriot firm Manafort set up to receive payments from Eastern European politicians like Yanukovich, who purportedly paid Manafort with money looted from the Ukraine state.



Manafort had been udner investigaiton for violations of federal tax law, money laundering and whether he failed to properly disclose his foreign lobbying.


As we"ve noted, since these charges mostly stem from Manafort"s work before he became involved with the campaign, they leave ample room for Trump to declare victory.


As far as impact to the market - so far nothing - and as KBW’s Brian Gardner explains, none is expected, despite expectations for much sound and fury and told-you-so"s from the left.


Special Counsel Robert Mueller"s indicting former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort or former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn over activities separate from Trump campaign/administration would be "mostly political noise," and would not significantly affect markets.


However, Gardner notes that any unsealing of indictments may dominate the week’s entire news cycle, drowning out coverage of tax legislation and monetary policy.


Now, we watch for the administration"s response.


Here"s the indictment:










Saturday, October 7, 2017

The US Government Lost Nearly $1 Trillion In FY2017... Again!

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,


There was a time, centuries ago, that France was the dominant superpower in the world.



They had it all. Overseas colonies. An enormous military. Social welfare programs like public hospitals and beautiful monuments.


Most of it was financed by debt.


France, like most superpowers before (and after), felt entitled to overspend as much as they wanted.


And their debts started to grow. And grow.


By the eve of the French revolution in 1788, the national debt of France was so large that the government had to spend 50% of tax revenue just to pay interest to its lenders.


Yet despite being in such dire financial straits the French government was still unable to cut spending.


All of France’s generous social welfare programs, plus its expansive military, were all considered untouchable.


So the spending continued. In 1788, in fact, the French government overspent its tax revenue by 20%, increasing the debt even more.


Unsurprisingly revolution came the very next year.


There are presently a handful of countries in the world today in similar financial condition– places like Greece, which are so bankrupt they cannot even afford to pay for basic public services.


But the country that has the most unsustainable public finances, by far, is the United States.


The US government’s ‘Fiscal Year’ runs from October 1st through September 30th. So FY2017 just ended last Friday.


During that period, according to the Department of Treasury’s financial statements, the US government took in $2.95 trillion in federal tax deposits.


And on top of that, the government generated additional revenue through fees and ‘investments’, including $62 billion in interest received on student loans, and $16 billion from Department of Justice programs like Civil Asset Forfeiture (where they simply steal property from private citizens).


So in total, government revenue exceeded $3 trillion.


That sounds like an enormous amount of money. And it is. That’s more than the combined GDPs of the poorest 130 countries in the world.


But the US government managed to spend WAY more than that– the budget for the last fiscal year was $4.1 trillion.


So to make up the shortfall they added $671 billion to the national debt– and this number would have been even larger had it not been for the debt ceiling fiasco.


Plus they whittled down their cash balance by $194 billion.


So in total, the federal government’s cash deficit was $865 billion for the last fiscal year.


And, again, that number would have been even worse if not for the debt ceiling that legally froze the national debt in place.


That’s astounding.


Just like in 2016 (where the cash deficit was $1 trillion), this past fiscal year saw no major recession. No full-scale war. No financial crisis or bank bailout.


It was just another year… business as usual.


And yet they still managed to overspend by nearly $1 trillion, with costs exceeding revenue by more than 20% (just like the French in 1788).


What’s going to happen to these numbers when there actually is a major war to fund? Or major recession? Banking crisis?


More importantly, they’ve been overspending like this for decades without any regard for the long-term consequences.


That’s why the national debt exceeds $20 trillion today. And including its pension shortfalls, the government estimates its total ‘net worth’ to be NEGATIVE $65 trillion.


Thousands of people are joining the ranks of Social Security and Medicare recipients each day, pushing up the costs of those programs even more.


Yet their Boards of Trustees warn that both Social Security and Medicare are quickly running out of money, raising the specter of a major bailout.


Plus there’s trillions of dollars more in needed spending to maintain the nation’s infrastructure. The list of long-term expenses goes on and on.


The obvious truth is that none of this is sustainable.


From the Roman Empire to the French in 1788, history tells us that the world’s dominant superpower almost invariably spends itself into decline, ignoring the consequences along the way.


It would be foolish to presume that this time will end up any different… especially given that there’s zero sign of any changes to the trajectory.


Congress has already put forward a new spending bill for this Fiscal Year– another 4+ trillion, not including any emergency spending that might arise (like hurricane relief, for example).


So we’re already looking at another nearly $1 trillion loss for the coming fiscal year, especially given that there’s almost no growth to tax revenue.


Don’t take this the wrong way– the sky is definitely not falling. The world isn’t coming to an end. And the US isn’t going to descend into financial chaos tomorrow morning.


But at a certain point, a rational person has to take note of such obvious and overwhelming data, and take some basic steps to reduce your exposure to the consequences.


For example, if your country is objectively insolvent, it probably doesn’t make sense to keep 100% of your assets and savings within its jurisdiction…


… especially if your government has a proud history of Civil Asset Forfeiture, AND you happen to be living in the most litigious society that has ever existed in the history of the world.


It’s easy (and incredibly cost effective) to move a portion of your savings to a safe, stable jurisdiction overseas that’s out of harm’s way.


Or to hold physical gold and silver in a safety deposit box overseas. Or even cryptocurrency as an alternative.


This isn’t some crazy idea for tin-foil hat-wearing doomsayers.


Rational, reasonable, normal have a Plan B.


And in light of the circumstances and all the data, it would be truly bizarre to NOT have one.


Do you have a Plan B?

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Ron Paul Explains Why "Government 'Aid' Only Makes Disasters Worse"

Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,


Texans affected by Hurricane Harvey, including my family and me, appreciate the outpouring of support from across the country. President Donald Trump has even pledged to donate one million dollars to relief efforts. These private donations will be much more valuable than the as much as 100 billion dollars the federal government is expected to spend on relief and recovery.



Federal disaster assistance hinders effective recovery efforts, while federal insurance subsidies increase the damage caused by natural disasters.


Federal disaster aid has existed since the early years of the republic. In fact, it was a payment to disaster victims that inspired Davy Crockett’s “Not Yours to Give” speech. However, the early federal role was largely limited to sending checks. The federal government did not become involved in managing disaster relief and recovery until the 20th century. America did not even have a federal agency dedicated solely to disaster relief until 1979, when President Jimmy Carter created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by executive order. Yet, Americans somehow managed to rebuild after natural disasters before 1979. For example, the people of Galveston, Texas successfully rebuilt the city following a major hurricane that destroyed the city in 1900.


FEMA’s well-documented inefficiencies are the inevitable result of centralizing control over something as complex as disaster recovery in a federal bureaucracy.


When I served in Congress, I regularly voted against federal disaster aid for my district. After the votes, I would hear from angry constituents, many of whom would later tell me that after dealing with FEMA they agreed that Texas would be better off without federal “help.”


Following natural disasters, individuals who attempt to return to their own property - much less try to repair the damage - without government permission can be arrested and thrown in jail.


Federal, state, and local officials often hinder or even stop voluntary rescue and relief efforts.


FEMA is not the only counterproductive disaster assistance program.


The National Flood Insurance Program was created to provide government-backed insurance for properties that could not obtain private insurance on their own. By overruling the market’s verdict that these properties should not be insured, federal flood insurance encourages construction in flood-prone areas, thus increasing the damage caused by flooding.


Just as payroll taxes are unable to fully fund Social Security and Medicare, flood insurance premiums are unable to fund the costs of flood insurance. Federal flood insurance was almost $25 billion in the red before Hurricane Harvey. Congress will no doubt appropriate funding to pay all flood insurance claims, thus increasing the national debt. This in turn will cause the Federal Reserve to print more money to monetize that debt, thus hastening the arrival of the fiscal hurricane that will devastate the US economy. Yet, there is little talk of offsetting any of the costs of hurricane relief with spending cuts!


Congress should start phasing out the federal flood insurance program by forbidding the issuance of new flood insurance policies. It should also begin reducing federal spending on disaster assistance. Instead, costs associated with disaster recovery should be made 100-percent tax-deductible. Those who suffered the worst should be completely exempted from all federal tax liability for at least two years. Tax-free savings accounts could also help individuals save money to help them bear the costs of a natural disaster.


The outpouring of private giving and volunteer relief efforts we have witnessed over the past week shows that the American people can effectively respond to natural disasters if the government would get out of their way.

Saturday, August 19, 2017

CalExit 3.0: New Petition Calls For Cali Secession...3rd Time's A Charm?

A new group of CalExit activists are hoping they can secede (see what we did there?) where two predecessor groups failed in efforts to force California"s independence from the United States of America.  Ironically, you would think that removing California from the union would be something that Republicans and Democrats could actually agree on...so we remained perplexed as to why this process is proving so difficult.


So, what"s their plan?  Well, rather than pursue a ballot measure, which requires 585,407 signatures, the CalExit 3.0 group has petitioned California"s Attorney General to call for a Constitutional Convention of the States so they can, among other things, amend the U.S. Constitution to allow for a "clear and reasonable path for individual States to become independent, so that CA can secede, if they so choose."


But, secession isn"t all they"re after...the CalExit 3.0 group enumerated a litany of Leftist grievances which they would like to address with constitutional amendments...here"s just a couple of our favorites (spelling mistakes below are not ours):





1. Given that "California is - and must always be - a refuge of justice and opportunity for people of all ages, backgrounds and aspirations - regardless of how you look, where you live, what language you speak, or who you love;"



2. Given that the world has changed dramatically since 1787, and over the next Century California will continue to invent the future, be it in Entertainment, IT, Medical discoveries, Environmental Protection, Global Climate Disaster Mitigation, or Civil Rights & Liberties;



3. Given that a Californian"s vote has one seventieth the weight of a citizen of Wyoming in the US Senate and has become functionally irrelevant in presidential elections;



5. Given that the US federal govermnent has seen increasing gridlock and citizens across the country feel poorly represented by the federal government;



6. Given that California"s government and people increasingly want to chart their own path on issues ranging from - but not limited to - immigration, civil representation and environmental protection and, given the US Constitution expressly designates states as sovereign entities;



20. Given that Californian"s believe in the equality and inherent dignity of all persons;



22. Given that California was seized undemocratically and annexed by the US in 1846 in an act of naked imperial aggression;



CalExit



Not surprisingly, the petition also calls for a whole bunch of very expensive entitlements...





8. Provide free, reliable and safe Universal healthcare for all citizens, regardless of medical history.



9. Provide free, high quality, Universal education.



...but then also calls for Federal taxes to be abolished...





Modify Federal tax law to render Federal taxes negotiable:



1. State tax becomes primary.



2. Federal tax secondary and negotiable, based on the needs of each State - to be determined by each State and the voters.



3. State govermnent negotiates Federal Taxes on its voters, and their respective communities, behalf to fairly and equally represent voters" values and needs, and those of their respective natural environments.



...which we presume means that they"re planning to rely on the entitlement fairy?




Here is the full petition filed with the Attonery General"s office:

Saturday, July 1, 2017

"It's Fake Fiscal News" - Jim Chanos Dashes Economic Pipe Dreams, Fears Much Worse To Come

Authored by Lynn Paramore via INETEconomics.com,



The famed short-seller offers a mid-2017 reality check for “fake fiscal news,” economic pipe dreams, and “portents of even worse things”






Since the election of Donald Trump, the stock market has soared and many pundits have noted positive economic trends in the US. Jim Chanos of Kynikos Associates, known for his financial prescience, is less sanguine. He sat down with INET’s Lynn Parramore to discuss the underlying components of the economy, in which he finds several areas of concern. Chanos is a member of INET’s Global Partners Council.



Lynn Parramore: Let’s talk about perceptions of the U.S. economy. You’ve pointed out that surveys asking how people feel about the economy show optimism, while actual hard numbers look disappointing. What do you make of this gap?


Jim Chanos: It’s intriguing that people are reporting they’re feeling better, particularly in the corporate sector, but even among consumers. People say they feel good about the economy and yet they apparently don’t have any money at the end of every month to keep spending.


We’re seeing weak consumer spending numbers in both auto and housing, which are big drivers of the economy. With unemployment so low and the expansion where it is, these figures should be better than they are. There are portents of even worse things when you look at state and federal tax receipts, which are down, and other leading indicators.


It could all just be a soft spot in an ongoing expansion — time will tell. But the narrative we were told is that animal spirits would take us to the next level of economic activity. That clearly is not happening in mid-2017. We’re 8 years into an economic expansion, and economists say that the modern U.S. economy has never gone more than 10 years without a recession. So as recoveries go we are well into it.


People have bought their cars and remodeled their houses and done a lot of things that one does in an economic recovery. I think incremental spending [spending based on increased disposable income] is going to be harder and harder to come by as time goes on.


LP: What about the health care industry? What impact would the GOP plans have on the economy?


JC:  The Senate bill is really onerous on the backs of consumers and patients. It appears that they need it to get tax cuts and tax reform done. But I don’t think the GOP understands the political minefield they’re laying for themselves here.


Americans are getting unexpectedly higher copay and deductible expenses. They’re shouldering more and more of the health care obligation themselves, and that’s something a lot of families haven’t budgeted for. It was already a going trend in our employer-based system at the time of Obama’s election — remember, about 50 percent of us get health care through our employers. But now it’s also happening in Obamacare’s individual and small group markets. That means people have less money to spend even if their income isn’t shrinking.


Winter is coming for the U.S. health care industry. So many businesses have been structured for ongoing health care usage and inflation that they’ve just gotten fat. People tend to extrapolate from the near-term past and by and large that’s ok, but it catches you flatfooted when there’s a real tectonic shift. I think we have one of those coming in U.S. health care. Just as the shale revolution has changed the energy business, I think the advent of the consumer paying more out of pocket is changing the politics of U.S. health care. Remember, the government pays about half the top line for U.S. health care companies in the form of reimbursement. So politics does matter.


LP: In terms of the energy business, how is it changing and how do those changes impact the economic road ahead?


JC: The energy business will be far more troubled going forward. Much of it is uneconomical. Global demand for oil, gas and fossil fuel is dropping, but supply keeps increasing. Exxon used to have returns on capital in the high 20s, now they’re in the single digits.


The good news is that America, because of the shale revolution, has lots of cheap natural gas. The bad news is that coal is not coming back, whatever President Trump might think. More good news is the increasing adaption of solar and wind and renewables. The bad news is that it’s going to leave a lot of energy companies out in the cold, for lack of a better term. I keep pointing to the fact that Saudi Arabia seems to be rushing to sell the public part of its oil patrimony via the Aramco IPO [the state-owned Saudi Arabian Oil Company] and I think there’s a reason for that.


Frackers are in trouble. They’ve raised so much capital and they’ve been very successful in increasing production, but not in creating cash flow for their investors. A couple of years ago when the Saudis began to put pressure on oil prices intentionally, it was to pressure the frackers and hasten their demise — but the business brought costs down just as fast as oil prices. Frackers were able to stay in business. The capital markets, which froze to them for about six months, opened back up, and that was key because this is a negative cash flow business and the fact that they could access capital again meant they just kept drilling. They keep drilling, but they will have to figure out a way to turn a profit.


LP: Much has been made of the tech companies, the celebrated “disrupters,” as drivers of American prosperity. What’s your view of these firms, the Facebooks and Ubers and Netflixes?


JC: With the exception of Facebook, the disrupters — Netflix, Uber, etc.— don’t seem to be scaling. The Harvard Business Review has a great story out which concludes that unlike dotcom 1.0 when Amazon and Facebook were inventing whole new markets and were relatively cash-flow positive right away, companies like Uber and Tesla are more personal fiefdoms of their CEOs.


Uber is going to be an interesting story. We’ve heard a lot about how they have manipulated workers and consumers, and the governance disasters. Lost in the story of corporate governance is the story of an unprofitable model. They haven’t figured out how to operate a sustainable business.


LP: What about Trump’s infrastructure proposals? Could they help the economy?


JC: That’s just another sort of fake fiscal news, if you will. It’s going to be public-private partnerships. I have a long experience with those: I was short Macquarie Bank, which was the originator of these sorts of things in ’05-’06.


Macquarie started the idea of infrastructure as an asset class idea. But it always revolved around things like parking structures and toll roads — anything where you can have clearly definable cash flow and where you can get an immediate cash payment for use. It’s not water culverts or county service roads. Macquarie did a famous deal on the Indiana toll road (which filed for bankruptcy in 2014, collapsing in debt). It’s things like that.


Because private investors need high rates of return, these deals generally haven’t been good deals for anybody. They haven’t generated the cash investors anticipated. Consumers end up avoiding the toll roads or using different parking facilities if you raise the rates too much. In reality, we already have something [that] create[s] these infrastructure projects: It’s call municipal finance, where municipalities and states can set up funding vehicles and sell bonds to finance the projects.


Now we’re told that the private sector will be able to do this better. Well, they might be able to do it better and faster, but only for a small number of projects. Real projects that we need — repairing, refurbishing, whatever — are tougher. You’re not going to get private investors to sign up for those without definable cash flows. It’s something that sounds good but when we actually start looking at projects that make sense for private investors leveraged up with state-backed or federally-backed bonds to do a project, we’re going to find that it winnows down the list dramatically.


LP: Who is actually going to benefit from such projects?


JC: In my own view, these public-private projects are not what core supporters thought they were getting with Trump.  It’s going to be great for Wall Street investment banks, but I’m skeptical that a lot of people are going to be able to get excited about the economic growth coming from them. Rural people won’t benefit from them. They won’t be happening in the Deep South, where you might need new levees. This is for parking garages at JFK. The reconstruction of New York City’s Tappan Zee Bridge is being funded this way, a public-private partnership.


In the U.S., an attitude of hostility toward government involvement in the economy has developed over the last several decades. In the U.K., when it comes to the economy, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party both see a role for government. The Conservatives see a role that needs to be shaped and controlled and limited, while Labour feels that government should have a bigger role. But they both understand that it has a meaningful role to play. In the U.S. we have a much different situation. The Democratic Party in the U.S. is more like the Conservative Party in the U.K., while the GOP is a party that is actually opposed to the government, taking the view that the government is bad and needs to be reduced or limited. That’s a significant difference, and it shows up in our infrastructure.


LP: How serious do you view the weaknesses in the economy we’ve discussed?


JC: One of these things that we’ve talked about wouldn’t be so bad, but you put them all together and the U.S. economy doesn’t look so great.


The big 3 drivers are still housing, autos, and health care. They disproportionately count for a huge amount of activity. What we see is that housing has stalled, autos have turned down, and health care is possibly about to turn down. Retail is also turning down. Nike is laying off 2 percent of its workforce. I can’t remember the last time Nike said it was laying off people.


Again, this could simply be cyclical, and as we reach the end of the expansion it gets harder and harder to generate new sales as peoples’ leverage has gone up. It could be that, but the problem is that we’re not well equipped to handle anything other than a downturn that’s mild because the Fed is already at near-zero interest rates.


Interestingly, the deficit is starting to go back up because of lower tax receipts. That’s the wrong way for the deficit to go up. New spending, like government spending on infrastructure, would be the right way.

Saturday, June 24, 2017

"They Can And Should Do More" Australian State Slams Banks With $280 Million Tax

Australian bankers are furious after the country’s smallest state levied a “surprise” tax on the country’s five biggest banks that could siphon off $280 million in profits during its first four years on the books, according to Reuters.  The tax was imposed by South Australia, which is struggling with the country’s highest unemployment rate and thanks the banks should be doing more to pitch in.



The decision, which provoked “howls of outrage from the sector,” represents an added financial burden on the largest banks beyond a $4.2 billion federal tax that was imposed last year - not to mention the country"s record-low interest rates.  The banks, struggling with low public favorability after a series of scandals and unified support in the country’s legislature, accepted that tax with minimal pushback. However, some are already threatening to pull investment as a form of retaliation.


The head of the Australian Bankers Association Anna Bligh called the tax "an outrageous cash grab without policy substance". Westpac Banking Corp and Australia and New Zealand Banking Group said the move could provoke a backlash from banks as they could decide to curtail investment in the state.


South Australian Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis said the five banks, which together collect about $30 billion in profit annually, can and should do more to help boost employment and contribute more to the state"s economy. The tax revenues will be used to fund job-training programs, Koutsantonis said.


Australia’s bankers fumed, saying they already do enough to prop up the country’s economy.





"All businesses will rightly question the political risk associated with investing in a State with a Government prepared to unfairly target an industry that has played a significant role in supporting its lagging economy," ANZ Chief Executive Shayne Elliott said in a statement.



The decision provoked speculation about whether the country’s other four states would impose similar taxes, with at least one analyst suggesting that at least a few states will.





"I would say it is definitely on the cards for other states," said Morningstar analyst David Ellis said. "For any cash-strapped state it looks like it is just an easy option."



However, he said it was unlikely that the country"s largest state, New South Wales, would impose a similar tax because it had a strong budget surplus and would want to maintain Sydney"s reputation as an Asia-Pacific financial services hub.


The tax will be equivalent to 6 basis points on 6 percent of the assets being taxed by the federal government. Koutsantonis reasons this is fair because South Australia’s economy accounts for only 6% of national GDP.