Read it and weep: "The move to a territorial system opens the barn doors wide to corporate offshoring"

Read all about the new giant sucking sound, here.

There's been a definite slow down in the growth rate of full-time jobs since 2015, about 25%

As a percentage of population, the broadest measure of unemployment is lower now than in 2006

Growth of full-time jobs after one year of Trump has been better than a sharp stick in the eye, but that's about it

Recent history shows that recipients of lower top marginal income tax rates haven't invested the money . . . here

The top marginal rate averaged 70% from 1960, 73% shown is from 1956. The investment data starts in 1960.

Individuals and businesses need incentives to invest here in the United States. They won't do it naturally.

Recent tax history shows this to be the case. For decades when top marginal income tax rates were very high before 1986, the most successful in our society plowed money into domestic investment to grow businesses through which they could derive income, which was taxed at lower long term rates than ordinary income which was taxed at very high rates. Not only did they themselves benefit handsomely, but the whole country benefited because people found useful employment and government received tax revenue. It was an arrangement which made America great.

After the 1986 tax reform which lowered top marginal rates, this stopped being true. The record shows a steep fall-off in domestic investment, which is one reason why incomes and jobs have been stagnant and deficits have piled up. 

The other reason, of course, is free-trade, euphemistically called globalization, which made it possible for businesses to invest internationally instead of domestically. This has been a boon to the growth of middle classes in other countries, but not in our own.

It's not very patriotic, is it?

What we need now is government policy which rewards domestic investment, and punishes its export. The best way to do this is to abolish taxation on domestic business completely to attract more of it, and heavily tax foreign business. We should also reinstate the correct mix of high top marginal income tax rates to incentivize business investment, coupled with attractive long term capital gains tax rates as a reward to the true risk-takers.

Needless to say, the Republican shift away from worldwide taxation to territorial taxation in the "reform" is about reducing risk to established business. This is simply going to make matters much worse for the American middle class, as is the obsession with making money the easy way through lower top marginal ordinary income tax rates.

The American character and spirit I once knew appears to be truly dead.

The new giant sucking sound of your jobs going abroad: Republican territorial tax "reform"

Phyliss Schlafly was rightly against a territorial system long ago, and most recently opposed it when the doofus from Texas, Rick Perry, proposed it as a candidate for president in 2015. Schlafly understood that it was anti-American, but she's dead, her voice gone silent. Only some lonely leftists remain who understand how wrong this is. No voices on the right are speaking out against this travesty.

Trump on the other hand thinks this is great, but obviously understands this as little as any other policy issue. He has become the Republicans' biggest chump, with the rest of us in tow.

From the story here:

Today, the United States has what’s known as a worldwide tax system in which all profits—foreign and domestic—are subject to a 35 percent corporate income tax. If a US company wants to return foreign profits to the United States, it pays the 35 percent rate minus what it’s paid to foreign governments. The House and Senate tax bills replace this with a “territorial” system that drops the tax rate to 20 percent for domestic profits and nothing for foreign profits.

The territorial model that the GOP is pushing would create an additional incentive to invest in countries like Ireland where the corporate rate is significantly lower than the United States. Republicans believe the differences won’t be big enough to drive investment abroad. Steve Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, disagrees, saying that’s still “plenty of juice” to encourage companies to shift production to countries with lower tax rates. Kimberly Clausing, an expert in international taxation at Reed College, writes that the shift to a territorial system “makes explicit, and permanent, the preference for foreign income over domestic income.” She estimates that profit shifting already costs the US government more than $100 billion per year. 

Large multinational companies can already play games to avoid paying the full rate, such as transferring intellectual property to tax havens and then stashing those profits abroad to indefinitely put off paying US taxes. Apple, for example, transfers patents and other intangible assets abroad, and then further reduces its tax burden with additional sub-licensing. Through tax schemes with names like the “Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich,” Apple has been able to amass more more than $128 billion in profits abroad that haven’t been touched by the IRS.

Republicans are proposing a series of guardrails to try to prevent companies shifting intangible assets—such as patents and trademarks—to tax havens. But Rosenthal says those protections are mostly ineffective and in fact create a set of new incentives to invest more abroad. He adds that it’s unclear whether the new status quo would be worse than the current system.

The main guardrail in the tax bills would impose a 10 percent tax on foreign profits that exceed a company’s “routine” return on tangible assets abroad. (Rosenthal’s blog post provides a more detailed explanation of how that works.) In theory, the guardrail would lead to companies paying a 10 percent tax when they shift profits to tax havens, but not when they actually make things abroad. In practice, the guardrail allows companies to shelter more money in tax havens when they build factories and other physical assets abroad—offering new tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas.

Either way, 10 percent is still half of what they would have paid if they hadn’t tried to game the system. Clausing argues that’s a clear sign Republicans are favoring foreign profits. Another is that Republicans’ aren’t using a territorial tax model that requires companies to pay a minimum rate in every country they operate in. Instead, the bill only considers whether they pay 10 percent abroad, on average. That’s an easy loophole to exploit. If Ford has a factory in Japan, it pays a corporate tax rate of about 30 percent. Ford could then shift intangible assets from the United States to a tax haven like Bermuda and still be paying more than 10 percent on a global basis. Clausing tells Mother Jones that it’s “well-known that a per-country minimum tax would be more effective and I think that’s why they didn’t do it.” 

Jimmy P has it right: Tax cuts never jazzed core Trump voters the way immigration restriction and The Wall did

Here for The Week:

Remember, the U.S. is in its 101st month of a steady-if-unspectacular economic expansion. The unemployment rate is low. While there are obviously millions upon millions of Americans who continue to struggle, overall the economy simply isn't the priority for voters that it is in times of real economic crisis. What's more, a failed tax cut is unlikely to derail the expansion, since expectations of a fat tax cut aren't responsible for the growing economy and rising stock market. (You can thank a global economic upturn for that.) And tax cuts — much less corporate tax cuts — weren't the motivating factor behind the Trumpopulist surge. Tax cuts never jazzed core Trump voters the way immigration restriction and The Wall did. Trump's diehard supporters won't howl over a failure to slash corporate tax rates. ... [N]o magic tax cut will turn 2 percent GDP growth into sustained 3 percent or 4 percent growth.

Duh: Employers are defiantly not raising wages, because they can get away with it when there are 4.6 million missing full-time jobs

Total nonfarm jobs grow at the pathetic pace of 167,000 per month y/y in October 2017

PAYEMS

Funny Rush hasn't mentioned it lately, but his infamous "94 million eating but not working" are still there one year later

If you're among the 59% who think this is the lowest point in American history, you're a dumbass

In 2009 in Obama's America, nearly 30 million people filed first time claims for unemployment. That high point is the lowest point in recent memory. And if you can't remember that, you're either a moron, on drugs, or NINE.

Story here.

Laugh of the Day: "Fans are still angry about Kaepernick’s continued unemployment"

Sure they are, says the dumb ass right here.

Don't look now but full-time job growth has slowed by 29% since 2015

(all data not-seasonally-adjusted)

In September 2017, full-time jobs grew barely by 2% year over year. The only other month in 2017 at 2% or higher was in April, at 2.3%, the dreaded spring of the year when the BLS' Birth/Death model adds phantom jobs to the economic data out of thin air based on business formation assumptions. All other months in 2017 so far have seen full-time jobs grow year over year by less than 2%, yielding the average shown of 1.7%. By contrast, 2016 had only three months out of the first nine below 2% growth year over year, and 2015 had none. Welcome to the slowdown, and maybe a . . ..

Just when you think you are talking to a sane person, he cites Paul Craig Roberts

"Others maintain the U.S. government seriously undercounts the national unemployment figures for political effect. Paul Craig Roberts is one whose view I would take over yours, no offense intended. He is a highly respected authority on political/economic issues."

You know Paul Craig Roberts:

Today, April 15, 2017, is the fourth anniversary of the Boston Marathon Bombing, a hoax event performed by crisis actors and tell-tale bright red Hollywood blood. Sheila Casey has done a good job of exposing the hoax just by using the time line and photos of the event. https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/false-flag-theatre-boston-bombing-involves-clearly-staged-carnage/

A number of agencies run training programs in which amputees working as crisis actors have a prosthesis afixed to resemble a bone as a remaining piece of a leg or arm. Casey examines the Boston event by timeline. First the crisis actors are assembled. Then the prosthesis is attached. Then the blood appears. ...

A person has to be extremely gullible and inattentive to believe the official story. But that is what most Americans are.

Trump's full-time jobs record so far puts him sixth out of eight presidents since JFK/LBJ

Multiple jobholding in July peaked in 1997, the go-go decade for jobs, at 8.05 million

In July 2017 it's only 7.3 million, not seasonally adjusted.

Complain that it's not more, not that it's too many.

Some people just don't get it. 

There's something you don't see everyday: Grossly UNDERESTIMATING "not in the labor force"

It's actually 94.6 million in July 2017, not 50 million.

Among all those millions, just 5.4 million "want a job now". The rest are old and retired, young and in school, unable to work because of disability, homemakers, etc.

You people out there just don't get it.

If employers could fire 30 million of your asses in 2009 and get along just fine without you, they still can.

Full-time job growth under Trump so far beats Obama and Bush, but that's about it

Note that employers panicked under Obama and fired people like crazy after his election, so there was a steep decline in full-time.

So far the growth of full-time shows a tentative thumbs-up to Trump, but still nothing like the vote of confidence typical after previous changes at the helm of state.

The puny 2.5% growth under George W. Bush, keep in mind, was still all pre-911 and post-Reagan bull market, which ended in August 2000. Trump is doing better than Bush, but not by much.

Average total employment is up about 5.1 million since the Great Recession by age groups, but the net increase comes from those over 54

Despite auto company bailouts, Michigan employment lags year 2000 levels by 308,000 jobs, the worst in the country

Ohio comes in number two, with a shortfall in jobs of 108,000 from the previous peak.

Together Michigan and Ohio account for 95% of the shortfalls in eight states recently identified in a Wall Street Journal blog post.