Senior Democrats in the U.S. Congress were at odds on Wednesday over a proposal to tax billionaires’ assets to help pay for President Joe Biden’s social and climate-change agenda, leaving it unclear if the idea had enough support to become law.
The Senate’s top tax writer, Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, unveiled the idea early on Wednesday, but by afternoon his House of Representatives counterpart, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, said the idea appeared to be too complex to succeed.
Biden’s Democrats are struggling to reach consensus on the scope of a pair of bills worth about $3 trillion to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure, boost social spending and fight climate change. With the narrowest of margins in Congress, and unified Republican opposition, they need near 100% agreement within the caucus to pass anything.
Biden and Democratic congressional leaders have been scaling back their ambitions in order to keep skeptical centrists on board. Several media outlets reported that they dropped a provision on Wednesday that would have provided up to 12 weeks of paid family leave.
Aides in Congress said the billionaires tax, affecting roughly 700 taxpayers with over $1 billion in assets or $100 million in annual income for three consecutive years, would impose a 23.8% tax rate for long-term capital gains on tradable assets, whether or not they have been sold. It would also allow taxpayers to take deductions for losses on assets.
Neal, along with other Democrats had backed Biden’s original proposal, which would raise tax rates on companies and the wealthy, but that idea faces an uphill fight in the Senate.
Referring to the billionaires tax, Neal said: “It will be very difficult because of its complexity.”
He added that Democrats are discussing imposing a 3% surtax on taxpayers earning more than $10 million.
Senator Bernie Sanders, a leading progressive, said the billionaires tax was a “step in the right direction” but not nearly enough. “Every sensible revenue option seems to be destroyed,” he told reporters. Sanders met with Biden on Wednesday, a White House aide said.
The billionaires tax plan was put forth after Senate moderates voiced opposition to the idea of raising corporate tax rates.
“The president supports the billionaire tax,” said White House spokesperson Jen Psaki. “He looks forward to working with Congress and Chairman Wyden to make sure the highest-income Americans pay their fair share.”
Two other revenue proposals – a 15% corporate minimum tax https://www.reuters.com/world/us/details-emerge-corporate-minimum-tax-plan-us-senate-democrats-cnbc-2021-10-26 and tougher enforcement of existing tax laws – also enjoy backing from the White House and congressional Democrats.
Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, a centrist who has forced Biden to scale back the spending package, reacted with skepticism to the billionaires tax proposal as well.
“I don’t like the connotation that we are targeting different people,” he told reporters.
Manchin said he would support a minimum 15% tax on wealthy individuals, similar to the 15% corporate minimum tax that Democrats have proposed.
He and Democratic Senator Kyrsten Sinema, another centrist who has opposed various Democratic proposals, met behind closed doors with White House staffers for roughly two hours on Wednesday.
The minimum corporate tax would dovetail with a global corporate minimum tax recently agreed to by 136 countries https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-treasurys-yellen-confident-congress-will-pass-global-minimum-tax-2021-10-10 and aimed at corporations that pay little or no tax by gaming the international tax system.
It would apply to many large American companies, such as Apple Inc, Amazon.com Inc, JPMorgan Chase & Co and Johnson & Johnson.
Some experts say the billionaires tax could be difficult to enforce.
“Government staffers tend to be outmatched by the most sophisticated, best-resourced taxpayers out there,” said Steve Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Top White House tax expert David Kamin wrote favorably about a similar proposal in 2019 while serving as a law professor. But he also noted that it could create “distortions” by encouraging a shift in investments to privately held firms.
Tesla Inc Chief Executive Elon Musk, who early this week was worth https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/teslas-1-trillion-value-double-bonanza-musk-2021-10-25 about $230 billion, criticized the plan on Twitter.
“Who is best at capital allocation — government or entrepreneurs — is indeed what it comes down to,” he said. Tesla, an electric car maker, has reaped at least $3 billion https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=tesla-inc in U.S. and local government support, according to Good Jobs First, a subsidy tracker.
Not all billionaires are opposed to the plan. George Soros, the investor and liberal activist, is supportive https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-billionaire-tax-proposal-seems-unite-democrats-will-it-work-2021-10-26, his spokesperson told Reuters on Monday.
(Reporting by Richard Cowan and David Morgan; Additional reporting by David Lawder, Trevor Hunnicutt, Tim Ahmann and Christopher Gallagher; Writing by Andy Sullivan; Editing by Scott Malone, Howard Goller and Peter Cooney)
A new reason to move: politics – Yahoo Canada Finance
Blue states will get bluer, and red redder, in coming years, as more Americans factor political issues into their relocation decisions and head for places with like-minded tribes.
That’s the forecast from real-estate brokerage Redfin, which included “more migration for political reasons” in its outlook for the housing market in 2022. The deepening political polarization of the country includes new city- and statewide laws likely to attract adherents and repel detractors, driving political issues deeper into community life. Texas this year passed the nation’s strictest anti-abortion law, for instance. A Mississippi anti-abortion law could lead the Supreme Court to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion legal everywhere. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, states will once again be free to set their own abortion statutes, creating a drastic dividing line between permissive and restrictive states.
Another Supreme Court case, involving gun rights, could make it easier to carry concealed weapons in New York and 7 other states, eroding gun-control efforts propagated largely by Democratic governors and mayors. On the other hand, marijuana is now legal in 19 mostly blue and purple states. Cities such as Philadelphia, San Francisco and New York are experimenting with police reform meant to cut down on lower-level arrests. Public-school curricula is a new flash point between parents who want racial and social justice taught in schools, and traditionalists who feel threatened by “wokeness.”
The Covid pandemic led to sharp disparities in masking rules, school opening policies and business restrictions among states and cities. That’s on top of longstanding differences in regulation and taxation between traditionally Democratic and Republican states. While there’s nothing new about regional differences in governing styles, policy polarization is making it easier for Americans to live in areas they find ideologically compatible. It’s also getting harder for liberals to find a comfortable enclave in conservative states, and vice versa.
[Click here to get Rick Newman’s stories by email.]
Moving patterns reflect politics
Americans seem increasingly likely to sort themselves into ideological groups by geography. “We know people are leaving blue counties and moving to red counties,” says Daryl Fairweather, chief economist at Redfin. “I think this will start to happen at the state level and at the neighborhood level. After next year’s midterm elections, we’ll be able to see if neighborhoods become more polarized.”
Up till now, the migration from blue states to red states has largely been driven by affordability. Blue states along the coasts typically have higher living costs and taxation levels than, say southern red states such as Texas and Florida. More and more, however, moving patterns reflect overt political choices.
An October Redfin survey of people who recently moved, for instance, found that 40% said they would prefer or insist on living in a place where abortion is fully legal. The portion taking the opposite view—saying they would prefer or refuse to live in an area where abortion is fully legal—was 32%. It’s not unusual for survey respondents to express strong opinions on abortion, but it may be new for people to factor such views into moving decisions. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe and more states ban or severely restrict abortion, it could become a bigger factor in relocation.
The Redfin survey of movers also gauged attitudes toward other touchy political topics. Larger percentages favored living in areas with liberal policies such as strong voter protections, gender anti-discrimination laws and legal weed. But 23% said they don’t want to live in places with strong anti-discrimination laws, 22% don’t want to live in a state with legal weed, and 16% don’t want to live where there are strong voter protections.
Americans consider many factors when deciding where to live, and some of those factors have political overtones. Many parents base home-buying decisions on the quality of schools, which drives up home prices in the best school districts and creates de facto segregation. The white-flight phenomenon has a similar effect, with whites who can afford to leaving urban areas for places where they consider quality of life better.
But those types of location decisions are based more on family-first attitudes than the liberal-conservative divide that’s taking root now. Americans choose a political tribe when they vote, donate money to political causes and decide which cable-news station to watch. Perhaps it’s only natural that Americans want to live among their political comrades, as well. Like much of America, real-estate listings are trending toward liberal or conservative.
Rick Newman is the author of four books, including “Rebounders: How Winners Pivot from Setback to Success.” Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman. You can also send confidential tips.
A new republic is born: Barbados ditches Britain’s Queen Elizabeth
Barbados ditched Britain’s Queen Elizabeth as head of state, forging a new republic on Tuesday with its first-ever president and severing its last remaining colonial bonds nearly 400 years after the first English ships arrived at the Caribbean island.
At the strike of midnight, the new republic was born to the cheers of hundreds of people lining Chamberlain Bridge in the capital, Bridgetown. A 21 gun salute fired as the national anthem of Barbados was played over a crowded Heroes Square.
Prince Charles, heir to the British throne, stood somberly as Queen Elizabeth’s royal standard was lowered and the new Barbados declared, a step which republicans hope will spur discussion of similar proposals in other former British colonies that have Queen Elizabeth as their sovereign.
Barbados casts the removal of Elizabeth II, who is still queen of 15 other realms including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and Jamaica, as a way to finally break with the demons of its colonial history.
After a dazzling display of Barbadian dance and music, complete with speeches celebrating the end of colonialism, Sandra Mason was sworn in as Barbados’s first president in the shadow of Barbados’s parliament.
“Full stop this colonial page,” Winston Farrell, a Barbadian poet told the ceremony. “Some have grown up stupid under the Union Jack, lost in the castle of their skin.”
“It is about us, rising out of the cane fields, reclaiming our history,” he said. “End all that she mean, put a Bajan there instead.”
The birth of the republic, 55 years to the day since Barbados declared independence, unclasps almost all the colonial bonds that have kept the tiny island tied to England since an English ship claimed it for King James I in 1625.
It may also be a harbinger of a broader attempt by other former colonies to cut ties to the British monarchy as it braces for the end of Elizabeth’s nearly 70-year reign and the future accession of Charles.
Prime Minister Mia Mottley, the leader of Barbados’ republican movement, helped lead the ceremony. Mottley has won global attention by denouncing the effects of climate change on small Caribbean nations.
“Tonight’s the night!” read the front-page headline of Barbados’ Daily Nation newspaper.
“I’m overjoyed,” Ras Binghi, a Bridgetown cobbler, told Reuters ahead of the ceremony. Binghi said he would be saluting the new republic with a drink and a smoke.
Prince Charles will give a speech highlighting the continuing friendship of the two nations despite England’s central role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
While Britain casts slavery as a sin of the past, some Barbadians are calling for compensation from Britain.
Activist David Denny celebrated the creation of the republic but said he opposes the visit by Prince Charles, noting the royal family for centuries benefited from the slave trade.
“Our movement would also like the royal family to pay a reparation,” Denny said in an interview in Bridgetown.
The English initially used white British indentured servants to toil on the plantations of tobacco, cotton, indigo and sugar, but Barbados in just a few decades would become England’s first truly profitable slave society.
Barbados received 600,000 enslaved Africans between 1627 and 1833, who were put to work in the sugar plantations, earning fortunes for the English owners.
More than 10 million Africans were shackled into the Atlantic slave trade by European nations between the 15th and 19th centuries. Those who survived the often brutal voyage, ended up toiling on plantations.
Barbados will remain a republic within the Commonwealth, a grouping of 54 countries across Africa, Asia, the Americas and Europe.
Outside the lavish official ceremony, some Barbadians said they were uncertain what the transition to a republic even meant or why it matter https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/barbados-heads-toward-republic-some-wonder-why-it-matters-2021-11-28ed.
“They should leave Queen Elizabeth be – leave her as the boss. I don’t understand why we need to be a republic,” said Sean Williams, 45, standing in the shadow of an independence monument.
The last time the queen was removed as head of state was in 1992 when the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius proclaimed itself a republic.
(Writing by Guy Faulconbridge in Bridgetown and Brian Ellsworth in Washington; Writing by Brian Ellsworth; Editing by Daniel Flynn, Lisa Shumaker and Lincoln Feast.)
Why we should all pay attention to China's influence on Italian politics | TheHill – The Hill
Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda and political influence organs have deeply penetrated Italian politics, according to “Hijacking the Mainstream,” a report published this month by the Global Committee for the Rule of Law (GCRL), an Italian-based organization that works in defense of human rights worldwide, and Prague-based Sinopsis, a project implemented by the nonprofit association AcaMedia, in collaboration with the Department of Sinology at Charles University in Prague.
The report documents how, as the result of an orchestrated, “united front” effort involving coordinated CCP-linked strategies, an “idea of submission” to China “percolates into officialese” in the Italian political and public sphere. The normalization of the CCP agenda has become a widely held, even commonsense assumption, while critics of China’s totalitarian regime and egregious human rights violations have been ostracized as “extreme.” This now broadly-based assumption, it appears, could be strong enough to resist the influence of this shocking report, unless public figures have the political will to follow recommendations that are crucial to the integrity and security not only of Italy, but of other European and liberal democratic countries seen by Chinese authorities as obstacles to their global ambitions.
While Italy’s responses to China’s influence operations have unique aspects, they show how a key U.S. ally and power in the European Union can be infected by CCP propaganda — and in revealing the basic architecture of those operations, the report thus should be a jeremiad and guide for other Western societies.
Enabling China’s successful Italian influence operation is what the report’s authors call “knowledge asymmetry.” Three in-depth case studies show how numerous naïve but nationally influential Italian politicians apparently have come under the sway of propaganda through the application of techniques that lie within the Leninist tradition of “friendly contacts.” The process has been orchestrated by the CCP’s International Liaison Department (ILD), “the main party organ in charge of exchanges with foreign elites outside of state-to-state diplomacy,” posing as a “legitimate partner of democratic political life” and with the main goal of “brainwashing away” anticommunist views.
Working within the framework of the ILD are other programs responsible for various dimensions of its task — for example, the China NGO Network for International Exchanges (CNIE), which aims for “the installation of the CCP’s concept of human rights in the Human Rights Council.” Judging by the adulation showered upon China following its last human rights review by the council, where a solid majority of state delegations praised China’s economic achievements as human rights victories, and tacitly accepted China’s description of Uyghur detention camps in Xinjiang as “vocational skills education and training institutions,” CNIE is on a roll.
Some Italian organizations partner with the ILD, giving it public legitimacy while promoting transparently ideological pro-CCP and anti-American positions, yet appearing as politically neutral institutions devoted to peace and international understanding. The head of the Centro Studi sulla Cina Contemporanea, former Italian Ambassador to China Alberto Bradanini, for example, praised China for “favoring peace and balance in the world” instead of “submission to the U.S.,” and referred to “Uyghur terrorism.”
Another affiliate of the ILD is the Chinese Association for International Understanding (CAFIU), which organizes events with European institutions — for example, Germany’s Social Democratic Party Foundation the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, which collaborated with CAFIU in a United Nations side event. The China Foundation for Human Rights Development, which answers to the State Council Information Office, was recently awarded consultative status in the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), a coveted accreditation allowing nongovernmental organizations access to and the capacity to intervene in Human Rights Council meetings. But CAFIU is hardly a civil society organization.
In the Italian Parliament, the Friends of China association is a main partner of the ILD. The group has defended China’s policies in the “New Tibet.” But the report documents how another center, the Instituto per la Cultura Cinese (ICC), established in 2016, has been most influential in promoting CCP political narratives, such as China’s “great human rights achievements,” under the guise of a nominally cultural organization. Its members are from among Italy’s most influential political leaders. But the ICC also includes critics of China’s policies, giving it “an aura of neutrality that obscures its nature as a partner of key CCP influence agencies,” according to the report. Even critics of China in the group thus associate themselves with CCP propaganda organs.
The way out of this dangerous infiltration and subversion of Italian politics lies in seemingly simple steps that, no doubt, would not be simple to undertake. The authors of “Hijacking the Mainstream” recommend avoiding alliances, participation or contact with CCP-affiliated organizations and rejecting exchanges with China. Italian politicians and officials must cleanse themselves by disengaging from entanglements that have made them victims to China’s influence operations that, in turn, have turned Italy toward a posture of accommodation.
But what would be the consequences of such moves? Italy’s Libero was the only newspaper to extensively cover the report. The media silence is eloquent.
Laura Harth, of GCRL and one of the report’s three authors, says that “the main objective of ‘Hijacking the Mainstream’ is to shed light on the who, what and why of the CCP influence agencies.” Some of Italy’s more overt actions catering to the CCP have drawn attention in recent years — for example, the continuing adhesion of Rome to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the CCP’s attempt to Sinicize globalization. But other actions have been superficial.
It is important to provide the necessary background and knowledge to international institutions and the general public so that a real debate and investigation can take place — which is what the report’s authors apparently want. This could lead to much-needed reforms to counter operations taking place mainly in the shadows.
While Italy is definitely not the only country facing such exposure, Harth says it is evident “that its status as a G7 country and one of the founding members of the [European Union] makes it a very ‘big catch’ for the CCP. And Italy’s ambiguity towards the PRC has consistently continued.”
Is this the reason that — while the United States and United Kingdom are discussing a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing 2022 Olympics — Rome remains formally engaged in co-promoting the event? A formal parliamentary inquiry on the findings of the report has been announced, and those named in it may fire back. For sure, this is only the first round.
Canada gets off on right foot in World Cup qualifying by sweeping Bahamas – Sportsnet.ca
The best Cyber Monday Apple Deals: AirPods Pro, Mac Mini, Macbook Air – Business Insider
Citing debris risk, NASA delays spacewalk to fix space station antenna – Financial Post
Silver investment demand jumped 12% in 2019
Europe kicks off vaccination programs | All media content | DW | 27.12.2020 – Deutsche Welle
Iran anticipates renewed protests amid social media shutdown
Business2 hours ago
4 Ways to Kill Your Chances With a Hiring Manager
Health23 hours ago
COVID-19 immunization clinics open to B.C. kids ages five to 11 today – Toronto Star
Health15 hours ago
COVID-19 in BC: Vaccine clinics open for kids Monday | CTV News – CTV News Vancouver
Health14 hours ago
Less than 20% of adults with arthritis attend self-management classes – Healio
Business14 hours ago
Canada’s power chip maker GaN Systems raises $150 million, pushes on electric car market
News4 hours ago
Canada Post employee COVID-19 vaccine mandate disrupts small town parcel service – Globalnews.ca
Business14 hours ago
Canada’s Capital Power and Enbridge to partner on carbon capture project
Health7 hours ago
Yukon reports 32 new cases of COVID-19, no new deaths – Toronto Star