deicer

Donating Member
  • Content Count

    7,092
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    70

deicer last won the day on July 18 2018

deicer had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

567 Excellent

4 Followers

About deicer

  • Rank
    7

Recent Profile Visitors

5,813 profile views
  1. It appears Canadians have embraced legal weed.... Canadians Spent $1.6 Billion on Legal Weed in 2018: Report
  2. Now companies are finding that they can't hire/retain people at the wage they are offering. Watch what happens over the next few months.....
  3. What you fail to acknowledge is that the right thinks of profit first, then walks back regulations to achieve it. Proven time and time again and still in effect.
  4. deicer

    Trump 2.0 Continues

    Like his tax returns, what is Donnie so adamant on hiding? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html?utm_term=.77158d5b2aef President Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, including on at least one occasion taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials, current and former U.S. officials said. Trump did so after a meeting with Putin in 2017 in Hamburg that was also attended by then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. U.S. officials learned of Trump’s actions when a White House adviser and a senior State Department official sought information from the interpreter beyond a readout shared by Tillerson. The constraints that Trump imposed are part of a broader pattern by the president of shielding his communications with Putin from public scrutiny and preventing even high-ranking officials in his own administration from fully knowing what he has told one of the United States’ main adversaries.
  5. https://globalnews.ca/news/4835648/walkerton-ford-government-66
  6. deicer

    Pilotless F-16

    The video is cool... https://fightersweep.com/11523/watch-ever-see-an-f-16-fly-itself-take-a-ride-in-this-fighters-empty-cockpit
  7. deicer

    Trump 2.0 Continues

    The short answer is no. As I said above, set a fair tax for corporations and then make sure they pay it by closing the loopholes. As it is, they pay way less proportionally than the '90%'. The rest of what you said is just idle reflection on something that can never be.
  8. deicer

    Trump 2.0 Continues

    Further to the above: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-repatriation/corporations-may-dodge-billions-in-u-s-taxes-through-new-loophole-experts-idUSKBN1F035Q And even if they repatriate profits, it still may be only smoke and mirrors... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-19/u-s-companies-repatriated-169-5-billion-in-second-quarter Companies pay the “deemed” tax whether or not the profits are actually brought back onshore. They can elect to pay the amount over eight years, despite when, or if, the money is brought back to the U.S. So if you are wondering why the global 'yellow vest' riots are happening, it is because the average Joe is fed up with having to pay a disproportionate share of the tax load. But hey, the corporations have them convinced it's the government doing it to them.
  9. deicer

    Trump 2.0 Continues

    Where you have it wrong is that the average American/Canadian is getting fed up with having to shoulder the load while the corporations and 1% get away with a disproportionately awesome deal. If they only paid their fair, and I emphasise 'fair' share of taxes, the health, education and infrastructure deficits that exist wouldn't exist. And it goes for Canada as well. As it has been said, 'A conservative is a person making $250/hr who convinces the person making $25/hr that the guy making $12/hr is the problem.' To back up my claim, I submit this, and if you follow the links, it does back up the premise from legitimate sources. https://americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-offshore-corporate-tax-loopholes/ Key Facts Tax avoidance through offshore tax loopholes is a significant reason why corporations, which paid one-third of federal revenues 60 years ago, now pay one-tenth of federal revenues. U.S. corporations dodge $90 billion a year in income taxes by shifting profits to subsidiaries — often no more than a post office box — in tax havens. U.S. corporations hold $2.1 trillion in profits offshore — much in tax havens — that have not been taxed in the U.S. General Electric, which uses a loophole for offshore financial profits, earned $27.5 billion in profits from 2008 to 2012 but claimed tax refunds of $3.1 billion. Apple made $74 billion from 2009-2012 on worldwide sales (excluding the Americas) and paid almost nothing in taxes to any country. 26 profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008-2012. 111 large, profitable corporations paid zero federal income taxes in at least one of those five years. Talking points We should end tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs and profits offshore. It’s time to invest in America and create jobs here. When big corporations use tax havens to dodge paying their fair share of taxes, the rest of us have to pick up the tab. Families pay higher taxes, get fewer services or we all get a bigger deficit. Tax dodging by large corporations puts small businesses that play by the rules at a disadvantage. We need to level the playing field. Corporations say our 35% corporate income tax rate is the highest in the world, which makes them uncompetitive and kills jobs. But corporations aren’t paying too much in taxes; many pay too little. The typical American family paid more income taxes in one year than General Electric and dozens of other companies paid in five years. Many large, profitable corporations pay a tax rate of less than 20%, and some pay absolutely nothing for years. If corporations pay less, you will have to pay more. Corporations need to pay their fair share too. Corporations say a repatriation tax holiday will enable them to bring profits home, invest and create jobs. When this was tried in 2004 it was an utter failure. Companies actually cut jobs, but they lined the pockets of big shareholders and corporate executives. A tax holiday gives tax breaks to corporations that have done the most to dodge paying their fair share of taxes. —————————- Overview Many U.S. corporations use offshore tax havens and other accounting gimmicks to avoid paying as much as $90 billion a year in federal income taxes. A large loophole at the heart of U.S. tax law enables corporations to avoid paying taxes on foreign profits until they are brought home. Known as “deferral,” it provides a huge incentive to keep profits offshore as long as possible. Many corporations choose never to bring the profits home and never pay U.S. taxes on them. Deferral gives corporations enormous incentives to use accounting tricks to make it appear that profits earned here were generated in a tax haven. Profits are funneled through subsidiaries, often shell companies with few em­ployees and little real business activity. Effectively, firms launder U.S. profits to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Loopholes used to shift U.S. profits to tax havens U.S. firms can set up a subsidiary offshore, channel billions of dollars of profit through it and make the subsidiary “disappear” for U.S. tax purposes simply by “checking a box” on an IRS form. Corporations can sell the right to patents and licenses at a low price to an offshore subsidiary, which then “licenses” back to the U.S. parent at a steep price the right to sell its products in America. The goal of this “transfer pricing” is to make it appear that the company earns profits in tax havens but not in the U.S. Wall Street banks, credit card companies and other corporations with large financial units can easily move U.S. profits offshore using a loophole known as the “active financing exception.” A U.S. corporation can do an “inversion” by buying a foreign firm and then claiming that the new, merged company is foreign. This lets it reincorporate in a country, often a tax haven, with a much lower tax rate. The process takes place on paper — the company doesn’t move its headquarters offshore and its ownership is mostly unchanged — but it continues to enjoy the privileges of operating here while paying low tax rates in the foreign country. How to solve the problem The simplest solution is to end “deferral,” as proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Jan Schakowsky. Corporations would pay taxes on offshore income the year it is earned, rather than indefinitely avoid paying U.S. income taxes. This would also remove incentives to shift U.S. profits to tax havens, and it would raise $600 billion over 10 years. Short of ending deferral, Congress should close the most egregious loopholes, such as “check the box,” “transfer pricing,” the “active financing exception” and corporate “inversions.” It should also end the loophole that lets firms deduct the cost of expenses from moving jobs and operations offshore if the profits earned from those activities remain offshore and untaxed by the U.S. — saving $60 billion over 10 years. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) has introduced legislation, the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act (S. 1533), that will close some of these loopholes. It will raise $220 billion over 10 years. Corporations really want a “territorial” tax system Corporations don’t just want to “defer” paying U.S. taxes on foreign profits. They want a “territorial” tax system that eliminates all U.S. taxation of offshore profits. This would provide even more incentives for corporations to shift profits to offshore tax havens. A system in which U.S. corporations pay no U.S. income taxes on offshore profits would encourage U.S. firms to create 800,000 jobs overseas rather than in the U.S. Why not let companies “bring the money home?” Because U.S. firms are officially holding $2.1 trillion in untaxed profits offshore, they are proposing a “repatriation tax holiday,” which would allow them to bring that money home at a special low tax rate. Supporters say this would increase domestic investment, creating jobs. A tax holiday was tried in 2004, when $300 billion was brought home at a 5.25% tax rate, but it was a big failure. It did not increase domestic investment or create jobs, and the money was used largely for stock buybacks, dividends and executive bonuses. Also, a tax holiday costs more than it raises — it will lose $100 billion over 10 years. Worst of all, it rewards firms that use offshore tax loopholes, encouraging even more tax dodging in the future. —————————- News Coverage The Islands Treasured by Offshore Tax Avoiders, The New York Times For U.S. Companies, Money ‘Offshore’ Means Manhattan, The New York Times Switching Names to Save on Taxes, The New York Times G.E.’s Tax Strategies Let it Avoid Taxes Altogether, The New York Times Cash Abroad Rises $206 Billion as Apple to IBM Avoid Tax, Bloomberg News Britain Becomes Haven for U.S. Companies Keen to Cut Tax Bills, Reuters Apple’s Web of Tax Shelters Saved It Billions Panel Finds, The New York Times Opinion ‘A is for Avoidance,’ The New York Times Corporations and their Tax Shell Games: Time for a Global Crackdown, The Los Angeles Times Resources Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance and Evasion, Congressional Research Service International Corporate Tax Rate Comparisons and Policy Implications, Congressional Research Service Offshore Shell Games 2014, Citizens for Tax Justice and U.S. PIRG The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes, Citizens for Tax Justice Don’t Renew the Offshore Tax Loopholes, Citizens for Tax Justice General Electric’s Special Tax Loophole Lets Company Dodge Billions in Taxes, Americans for Tax Fairness The Fiscal and Economic Risks of Territorial Taxation, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Repatriation Tax Holiday Would Lose Revenue and Is a Proven Policy Failure, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Corporate Tax Rates And Economic Growth Since 1947, Economic Policy Institute Corporate Income Tax: Effective Tax Rates Can Differ Significantly from the Statutory Rate’ U.S. Government Accountability Office
  10. deicer

    Trump 2.0 Continues

    Once again it is proven that trickle down economics are the greatest lie set upon man. Just ahead of anything Donnie says. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/business/trump-tax-cuts-revenue.html Federal tax revenues declined in 2018 while economic growth accelerated, undercutting the Trump administration’s insistence that the $1.5 trillion tax package would pay for itself. It’s time to put to rest any notion that President Trump’s signature tax cuts are paying for themselves. Anyone who says otherwise is lying with numbers. A year after the $1.5 trillion tax-cut package took effect, economic growth has accelerated, just as Republicans promised it would when pushing the law through Congress. Growth appears likely to hit 3 percent for 2018, after adjusting for inflation, which is a full percentage point higher than the Congressional Budget Office forecast for the year in 2017. Not all of that increase is attributable to the tax cuts, but some of it is. That’s good news for Republicans’ longstanding claim that cutting taxes would provide such an economic bump that additional tax revenue would flow in to make up for what was lost through lower tax rates. But the bad news is that hasn’t happened. The additional tax revenue has yet to show up, even with stronger growth. Data released this week by the budget office provides the first complete picture of federal revenues for the 2018 calendar year, when the tax cuts were in full effect. (The government’s 2018 fiscal year included three months from the end of 2017, when most of the tax cuts were not in effect.) In the inaugural year of the tax cuts — with economic growth accelerating and the jobless rate falling to an 18-year low — federal revenues from corporate, payroll and personal income taxes actually fell. That’s true whether you adjust revenues and growth for inflation — or not. After adjusting, it looks even worse. Revenues fell by 2.7 percent — or $83 billion — from 2017. Contrast that with the last time economic growth approached 3 percent, back in 2015. The economy grew by 2.9 percent after adjusting for inflation that year — and tax revenues grew by 7 percent. The historical contrast makes the drop-off look even steeper. Typically, economists expect stronger growth to generate more revenue. People earn more money, corporations generate higher profits and they all pay taxes on it. The way most economists “score” a tax proposal is to ask how it would change revenue levels compared to what you would expect the government to collect if the tax cut had not passed — what economists call a “baseline.” In the summer of 2017, for example, the budget office projected that the economy would grow by 2 percent in the 2018 fiscal year, and that personal, corporate and payroll taxes would add up to $3.24 trillion. Then the tax cuts passed, growth accelerated and, for the 2018 fiscal year, tax revenues fell $183 billion — or 5.6 percent — short of that projection. Republicans, particularly in the Trump administration, sold the tax law on claims that it would pay for itself — even when economists outside the administration, like the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, released models contradicting them. As corporate tax receipts fell significantly last year, some Republicans began to insist that, in fact, the bill was paying for itself, because total tax revenues were very slightly up. The 2018 figures contradict that argument, too. The uncomfortable truth for the bill’s supporters is that the tax cuts are substantially contributing to a widening federal budget deficit, which now appears on track to top $1 trillion this year. If growth fades in the coming years — as many economists believe it will — the cuts could exacerbate the deficit even more. The best-case scenario for proponents is that the cuts spur a sustained increase in productivity and growth, which in turn produces increasingly higher revenues several years down the road — enough to reduce the “cost” of the bill to the budget deficit. The 2018 results are, oddly enough, what a lot of economists predicted would happen with Mr. Trump’s cuts, including ones who generally favor tax cuts. Total federal revenues in 2018 came in roughly where the Tax Foundation, a Washington think tank that typically projects large growth boosts from tax cuts, had forecast — which is to say, well below the budget office’s baseline. Just because the new law helped to increase economic growth, said Kyle Pomerleau, an economist with the Tax Foundation, “it doesn’t mean that it is going to pay for itself.” Mr. Pomerleau said additional growth from the law “will continue to be modest over the next couple of years.” “That will offset some of the initial cost,” he continued, “but it will still be nowhere near enough to make the tax cut self-financing.” In December 2017, as Republicans sped the tax cuts through Congress, the Tax Foundation released a projection that the cuts would add about $450 billion to federal deficits over 10 years, after accounting for the additional economic growth it would spur. The group has since redone the analysis, with what Mr. Pomerleau called improvements to its methodology. It now predicts deficits will increase by $900 billion — double its original forecast.
  11. deicer

    Trump 2.0 Continues

    This unprecedented act makes it even more interesting to see the final report! F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia WASHINGTON — In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation. The inquiry carried explosive implications. Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president’s own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence. The investigation the F.B.I. opened into Mr. Trump also had a criminal aspect, which has long been publicly known: whether his firing of Mr. Comey constituted obstruction of justice. Agents and senior F.B.I. officials had grown suspicious of Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia during the 2016 campaign but held off on opening an investigation into him, the people said, in part because they were uncertain how to proceed with an inquiry of such sensitivity and magnitude. But the president’s activities before and after Mr. Comey’s firing in May 2017, particularly two instances in which Mr. Trump tied the Comey dismissal to the Russia investigation, helped prompt the counterintelligence aspect of the inquiry, the people said. The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, took over the inquiry into Mr. Trump when he was appointed, days after F.B.I. officials opened it. That inquiry is part of Mr. Mueller’s broader examination of how Russian operatives interfered in the 2016 election and whether any Trump associates conspired with them. It is unclear whether Mr. Mueller is still pursuing the counterintelligence matter, and some former law enforcement officials outside the investigation have questioned whether agents overstepped in opening it. The criminal and counterintelligence elements were coupled together into one investigation, former law enforcement officials said in interviews in recent weeks, because if Mr. Trump had ousted the head of the F.B.I. to impede or even end the Russia investigation, that was both a possible crime and a national security concern. The F.B.I.’s counterintelligence division handles national security matters. If the president had fired Mr. Comey to stop the Russia investigation, the action would have been a national security issue because it naturally would have hurt the bureau’s effort to learn how Moscow interfered in the 2016 election and whether any Americans were involved, according to James A. Baker, who served as F.B.I. general counsel until late 2017. He privately testified in October before House investigators who were examining the F.B.I.’s handling of the full Russia inquiry. “Not only would it be an issue of obstructing an investigation, but the obstruction itself would hurt our ability to figure out what the Russians had done, and that is what would be the threat to national security,” Mr. Baker said in his testimony, portions of which were read to The New York Times. Mr. Baker did not explicitly acknowledge the existence of the investigation of Mr. Trump to congressional investigators. No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials. An F.B.I. spokeswoman and a spokesman for the special counsel’s office both declined to comment. Rudolph W. Giuliani, a lawyer for the president, sought to play down the significance of the investigation. “The fact that it goes back a year and a half and nothing came of it that showed a breach of national security means they found nothing,” Mr. Giuliani said on Friday, though he acknowledged that he had no insight into the inquiry. The cloud of the Russia investigation has hung over Mr. Trump since even before he took office, though he has long vigorously denied any illicit connection to Moscow. The obstruction inquiry, revealed by The Washington Post a few weeks after Mr. Mueller was appointed, represented a direct threat that he was unable to simply brush off as an overzealous examination of a handful of advisers. But few details have been made public about the counterintelligence aspect of the investigation. The decision to investigate Mr. Trump himself was an aggressive move by F.B.I. officials who were confronting the chaotic aftermath of the firing of Mr. Comey and enduring the president’s verbal assaults on the Russia investigation as a “witch hunt.” A vigorous debate has taken shape among some former law enforcement officials outside the case over whether F.B.I. investigators overreacted in opening the counterintelligence inquiry during a tumultuous period at the Justice Department. Other former officials noted that those critics were not privy to all of the evidence and argued that sitting on it would have been an abdication of duty. The F.B.I. conducts two types of inquiries, criminal and counterintelligence investigations. Unlike criminal investigations, which are typically aimed at solving a crime and can result in arrests and convictions, counterintelligence inquiries are generally fact-finding missions to understand what a foreign power is doing and to stop any anti-American activity, like thefts of United States government secrets or covert efforts to influence policy. In most cases, the investigations are carried out quietly, sometimes for years. Often, they result in no arrests. Mr. Trump had caught the attention of F.B.I. counterintelligence agents when he called on Russia during a campaign news conference in July 2016 to hack into the emails of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump had refused to criticize Russia on the campaign trail, praising President Vladimir V. Putin. And investigators had watched with alarm as the Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit Russia. Other factors fueled the F.B.I.’s concerns, according to the people familiar with the inquiry. Christopher Steele, a former British spy who worked as an F.B.I. informant, had compiled memos in mid-2016 containing unsubstantiated claims that Russian officials tried to obtain influence over Mr. Trump by preparing to blackmail and bribe him. In the months before the 2016 election, the F.B.I. was also already investigating four of Mr. Trump’s associates over their ties to Russia. The constellation of events disquieted F.B.I. officials who were simultaneously watching as Russia’s campaign unfolded to undermine the presidential election by exploiting existing divisions among Americans. “In the Russian Federation and in President Putin himself, you have an individual whose aim is to disrupt the Western alliance and whose aim is to make Western democracy more fractious in order to weaken our ability, America’s ability and the West’s ability to spread our democratic ideals,” Lisa Page, a former bureau lawyer, told House investigators in private testimony reviewed by The Times. “That’s the goal, to make us less of a moral authority to spread democratic values,” she added. Parts of her testimony were first reported by The Epoch Times. And when a newly inaugurated Mr. Trump sought a loyalty pledge from Mr. Comey and later asked that he end an investigation into the president’s national security adviser, the requests set off discussions among F.B.I. officials about opening an inquiry into whether Mr. Trump had tried to obstruct that case. But law enforcement officials put off the decision to open the investigation until they had learned more, according to people familiar with their thinking. As for a counterintelligence inquiry, they concluded that they would need strong evidence to take the sensitive step of investigating the president, and they were also concerned that the existence of such an inquiry could be leaked to the news media, undermining the entire investigation into Russia’s meddling in the election. After Mr. Comey was fired on May 9, 2017, two more of Mr. Trump’s actions prompted them to quickly abandon those reservations. The first was a letter Mr. Trump wanted to send to Mr. Comey about his firing, but never did, in which he mentioned the Russia investigation. In the letter, Mr. Trump thanked Mr. Comey for previously telling him he was not a subject of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation. Even after the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, wrote a more restrained draft of the letter and told Mr. Trump that he did not have to mention the Russia investigation — Mr. Comey’s poor handling of the Clinton email investigation would suffice as a fireable offense, he explained — Mr. Trump directed Mr. Rosenstein to mention the Russia investigation anyway. He disregarded the president’s order, irritating Mr. Trump. The president ultimately added a reference to the Russia investigation to the note he had delivered, thanking Mr. Comey for telling him three times that he was not under investigation. The second event that troubled investigators was an NBC News interview two days after Mr. Comey’s firing in which Mr. Trump appeared to say he had dismissed Mr. Comey because of the Russia inquiry. “I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it,” he said. “And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.” Mr. Trump’s aides have said that a fuller examination of his comments demonstrates that he did not fire Mr. Comey to end the Russia inquiry. “I might even lengthen out the investigation, but I have to do the right thing for the American people,” Mr. Trump added. “He’s the wrong man for that position.” As F.B.I. officials debated whether to open the investigation, some of them pushed to move quickly before Mr. Trump appointed a director who might slow down or even end their investigation into Russia’s interference. Many involved in the case viewed Russia as the chief threat to American democratic values. “With respect to Western ideals and who it is and what it is we stand for as Americans, Russia poses the most dangerous threat to that way of life,” Ms. Page told investigators for a joint House Judiciary and Oversight Committee investigation into Moscow’s election interference. F.B.I. officials viewed their decision to move quickly as validated when a comment the president made to visiting Russian officials in the Oval Office shortly after he fired Mr. Comey was revealed days later. “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to a document summarizing the meeting. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
  12. deicer

    Solidarity?

    Saw this on social media, can anyone confirm it's actually happening? If it is, it makes me prouder to be Canadian!
  13. While I can't dispute your observation, it appears that restaurants in general are making a cash grab. It isn't just in Ontario. That's the effect of the bastardized version of capitalism in effect. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-11/goodbye-date-night-u-s-restaurant-prices-jump-most-since-2011