FEBRUARY 1 AND 2, 2019

NEWS AND VIEWS

“OLD BILLIONAIRES?” YES. IT’S TIME TO GET A MUCH MORE FAVORABLE ESTATE TAX IN PLACE, IF WE’RE GOING TO, BEFORE THEY DIE THAT IS. CRUEL? HARDLY. THEY HAVE PLENTY OF MONEY TO SPARE, AND HAVE ENJOYED IT FOR DECADES. THEY CAN AFFORD A STAFF OF EMPLOYEES TO CLEAN, COOK, ATTEND TO THEIR MEDICAL NEEDS, DRIVE THE LIMOUSINES, AND SAIL THE YACHTS. THEY WILL ALSO PICK UP THE MAIL, PAY THE BILLS, DO THE LEGAL WORK, TAKE CARE OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY HOUSES AND THE RACEHORSES. ETC.

https://slate.com/business/2019/02/bernie-sanders-estate-tax-hikes-old-billionaires.html
MONEYBOX
This Is a Great Time to Hike the Estate Tax, Because America’s Billionaires Are Getting Really, Really Old
By JORDAN WEISSMANN
FEB 01, 20197:17 PM

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 31: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) walks with his wife Jane after leaving the Senate floor for a vote on legislation advancing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's plan voicing opposition to U.S. President Donald Trump's intention of withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Syria on January 31, 2019 in Washington, DC. The Senate voted in overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion in favor of the legislation, rebuking President Trump's policy. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

PHOTOGRAPH – SANDERS AND WIFE JANE
Win McNamee/Getty Images

Popular in Slate --
Dear Care and Feeding: My Daughter Doesn’t Want to Give a Valentine to a Mean Kid
I’m a 30-Year-Old Female Virgin. Should l Tell the Guys I Date?
It’s Both Difficult and Incredibly Important to Make the Case for Third-Trimester Abortions

You know what Sen. Bernie Sanders would love to do? Soak the rich. And what have Democrats been doing lately? Antagonizing Howard Schultz by talking about how to soak the rich. So this week, the senator from Vermont joined the festivities by rolling out his plan to confiscate the wealth of America’s millionaires and billionaires when they die through a massive expansion of the estate tax.

As part of the 2017 tax cut, Republicans doubled the amount of money Americans could leave behind to their heirs before the estate tax would start to bite. Today, the levy only applies to fortunes worth at least $11.8 million, with a top rate of 40 percent. Sanders would lower the minimum back to down to $3.5 million while imposing progressively higher rates that top out a 77 percent for billionaires. (Sanders notes this was the maximum rate from 1941 to 1976). The proposal would impact the wealthiest 0.2 percent of U.S. households, which is why he has called it the “For the 99.8 Percent Act.”

Sanders is not the only Democrat to suggest blowing out the estate tax. Cory Booker proposed bringing back its 2009 parameters to fund his baby bonds proposal, for instance. More generally, Democrats have become newly interested in finding ways to tax the accumulated wealth of the ultra-rich, rather than merely skimming a bit of their income each year. Elizabeth Warren has proposed a tax on households with more than $50 million to their name that would take 2 to 3 percent of their net-worth each year. But in all likelihood, any concerted effort to go after wealth would require multiple taxes in order to close off avoidance opportunities.

Restoring the estate tax seems like an especially timely way to do it. How come? At the risk of being a bit crude, America’s billionaires are getting old. Very old. Forbes’ list of the 400 richest Americans includes, by my count, 128 individuals individuals [sic] over the age of 75. Most of these people are probably not going to live much more than a decade—according to research from the Equality of Opportunity Project, America’s one-percenters can expect to keep on keepin’ on roughly until their mid-to-late 80s (technically, that stat applies to individuals at age 40, but you get the idea). We only have a limited amount of time to take a reasonable cut of their money hoard before it gets passed on to their heirs. That, or we’re about to witness at a tidal wave of intergenerational wealth transfer that could leave us with a whole Forbes list worth of Wyatt Kochs. Is that what we want America? Even if you don’t mind the occasional gauche Hawaiian shirt, or the idea of parents handing gigantic brokerage accounts to their kids, or care whether people with vast financial resources at their disposal earned them, research has suggested that inequality driven specifically by inherited wealth may be a drag on the economic growth. (The reasons why aren’t entirely clear, and the researchers arrive at their conclusions through a series of cross-country regressions, which aren’t exactly the world’s greatest research method. But academic inquiry on this subject is surprisingly scarce and we’ve got to take what we’ve got). Pumping up estate taxes soon might not just be necessary for the sake of good taste, basic egalitarian instinct, or our bubbling class resentments. It may be necessary for the good our whole economy.

Support our journalism
Help us continue covering the news and issues important to you—and get ad-free podcasts and bonus segments, members-only content, and other great benefits.

2020 Campaign Bernie Sanders Economics Economy Elizabeth Warren


https://www.fool.com/taxes/2019/02/02/bernie-sanders-estate-tax-plan-what-all-americans.aspx
Bernie Sanders’ Estate Tax Plan -- What All Americans Need to Know
The potential 2020 presidential candidate just proposed a big increase to the estate tax.
Matthew Frankel, CFP (TMFMathGuy)
Feb 2, 2019 at 7:37AM

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) recently proposed a plan to expand the federal estate tax. Not only would Sanders' plan make more estates subject to the tax, but it would also create a series of tax brackets that apply to estates of various values with a top marginal rate of 77%.

With that in mind, here's a rundown of the details of Sanders' plan, as well as where it could fit into other plans to increase taxes on the rich.

Letter blocks spelling out "tax" with a clock on top.
IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

Sanders' estate tax plan -- a big hit for billionaires
Sanders plans to introduce legislation known as the "For the 99.8% Act," which would dramatically expand the estate tax in the United States.

Under the plan, the tax would affect estates valued at more than $3.5 million. Sanders estimates that this is about 0.2% of the country, which is where the legislation gets its name. So, to be perfectly clear, unless you died with an estate worth more than $3.5 million, Sanders' plan wouldn't affect you whatsoever.

Furthermore, there would be a series of four estate tax brackets, which would charge higher tax rates on the largest estates. The lowest marginal rate would be 45% on estates valued at less than $10 million to a massive 77% tax on the value of estates in excess of $1 billion. Here's the entire proposed estate tax structure:


Value of Estate

Marginal Tax Rate

$3.5 million to $10 million

45%

$10 million to $50 million

50%

$50 million to $1 billion

55%

More than $1 billion

77%

DATA SOURCE: THE WASHINGTON POST.

It's difficult to say how much additional tax revenue this could result in, as the estate tax only is levied when an individual dies. Sanders' staff claims that from billionaires alone, the plan would raise an additional $2.2 trillion (presumably in 2019 dollars). Over the next decade, the estimate is for $315 million in additional tax revenue.

For comparison, the 2019 estate tax only affects estates valued at more than $11.4 million per person, or $22.8 million per married couple. And the effective estate tax rate is a flat 40% rate on the taxable portion of all estates.

Many ways to tax the rich

In what is becoming an early theme of the 2020 election cycle, Sanders' plan is just the latest in a recent string of proposals by Democrats to increase taxes on the rich. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) recently made headlines with her call for a 70% tax bracket on income over $10 million, and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wants to impose a wealth tax on the richest Americans.

And to be clear, Sanders doesn't want to only raise the estate tax. He also supports a wealth tax*, similar to Warren's proposal, as well as a higher tax rate on top earners, as Ocasio-Cortez proposed. In short, Sanders wants to make sure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share by going after the issue from several different angles.

This Marijuana Stock Could be Like Buying Amazon for $3.19

A little-known Canadian company just unlocked what some experts think could be the key to profiting off the coming marijuana boom.

And make no mistake – it is coming.

Cannabis legalization is sweeping over North America – 10 states plus Washington, D.C., have all legalized recreational marijuana over the last few years, and full legalization came to Canada in October 2018.

And one under-the-radar Canadian company is poised to explode from this coming marijuana revolution.

Because a game-changing deal just went down between the Ontario government and this powerhouse company...and you need to hear this story today if you have even considered investing in pot stocks.


WEALTH TAX*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax
Wealth tax (capital tax, equity tax)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Capital tax" redirects here. For taxes on investment income, see capital gains tax.

A wealth tax (also called a capital tax or equity tax) is a levy on the total value of personal assets, including: bank deposits, real estate, assets in insurance and pension plans, ownership of unincorporated businesses, financial securities, and personal trusts.[1] Typically liabilities (primarily mortgages and other loans) are deducted, hence it is sometimes called a net wealth tax.

A wealth tax taxes the accumulated stock of purchasing power, in contrast to income tax, which is a tax on the flow of assets (a change in stock).



THE MAIN USA PROGRESSIVES ARE TALKING ABOUT A CONCEPT CALLED A “WEALTH TAX” AND THE NEWS ARTICLE RUN THE GAMUT ON INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ISSUE: MAY BE “UNCONSTITUTIONAL” (CNBC); is “LEGAL AND NECESSARY,” (NEWSDAY); “CONSTITUTIONALLY PROBLEMATIC,” (CITY JOURNAL.) THOSE ARE HEADLINES ON ALL THREE NEWS SITES THAT GOOGLE PRESENTED TO ME ON THAT SEARCH TERM.

THAT MEANS THAT IT MAY BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF A WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION PLAN THAT WOULD SPREAD THE MONEY AROUND IN THIS COUNTRY, AT LEAST A LITTLE. THE TAX FOUNDATION SAYS THAT IT’S CONSTITUTIONALITY IS “UNCLEAR,” BUT BLOOMBERG SAYS IT “PROBABLY” IS [LEGAL]. BECAUSE THEY ARE THESE BIGGEST OF THE BIG BOYS IN THE NEWS WORLD, I AM GIVING YOU THE WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE. WELL, THE NYT MAY BE BIGGER, BUT I TRUST THE HONESTY AND THOROUGHNESS OF THE WAPO MORE. (IF THIS ISN’T ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR YOU, TRY NPR.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/elizabeth-warren-wants-a-wealth-tax-it-might-backfire/2019/01/27/67a795e4-20c5-11e9-8b59-0a28f2191131_story.html
The Post's View Opinion
Elizabeth Warren wants a ‘wealth tax.’ It might backfire.
By Editorial Board January 27

PHOTOGRAPH -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren is one of the many Democrats running for president in 2020. (Carlos Giusti/AP)

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) plans to propose an annual 2 percent federal tax on individual fortunes of more than $50 million and 3 percent on those greater than $1 billion, according to economists advising her campaign. A lot has to happen before anything like this could ever become law: Ms. Warren would have to (a) get elected; (b) win 60 votes in the Senate; and (c) overcome a likely constitutional challenge. (Depending on how it’s structured, a wealth tax might run afoul of the Constitution’s ban on “direct” taxes that are not levied in proportion to the population of each state.) Such political and legal obstacles aside, would it be a good idea?

Unquestionably, a wealth tax attacks a real issue with real consequences for democratic governance: the high and rising concentration of the nation’s assets in relatively few hands. The wealthiest 1 percent of U.S. households owns 40 percent of the country’s wealth, whereas the bottom 90 percent owns a bit over 20 percent; in 1962, these two groups owned 30 percent each. Much of this wealth belongs to people who got it through inheritance, financial engineering, privileged access to natural resources or other economically unproductive means known to economists as “rent-seeking*.” A wealth tax would discourage such behavior.

It is questionable, though, whether a flat annual tax on wealth is the best way to tackle the inequity and inefficiency associated with concentration of wealth. Problems of implementation abound, starting with pricing non-publicly traded assets such as land or rare antiques. The tax would create a huge incentive for tax avoidance among a segment of society well able to afford accountants and lawyers. The authors of the proposed wealth tax would bolster enforcement by charging people worth more than $50 million to renounce their citizenship, which conveys a certain authoritarian odor. This country has prided itself as a destination for immigrants with great ideas for creating wealth, not as a place that bars the exits to anyone, rich or poor.

This country also has recognized that people’s fortunes often result not from rent-seeking, but from socially and economically beneficial activity such as, say, perfecting the personal computer — or writing a delightful children’s novel that becomes a blockbuster movie franchise. A goal should be to reduce inequality without demonizing anyone.

It’s notable that eight of the 12 European countries that had net wealth taxes in 1990 had repealed them as of 2017, according to a 2018 Organization Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report. The repealers included such bastions of social democracy as Sweden and Denmark. France joined the list in 2018.

The OECD report suggested an optimal system would target capital income* and inheritance of wealth, which could be done here by reducing the current code’s favorable treatment of capital gains and eliminating the huge break for profits on the sale of inherited stock, while putting some teeth back into the estate tax. That would discourage what’s most contrary to American ideals, dynastic wealth accumulation, while encouraging what’s most consistent, getting rich on the merits.

Read more:

-- David Moscrop: Canada doesn’t have an inheritance tax. For the sake of democracy, that needs to change.

-- Jeff Stein: ‘You don’t need a loophole’: Trump’s tax law is making passing down large fortunes much easier

-- Jared Bernstein: Sen. Warren’s plan to tax the ultrawealthy is a smart idea whose time has come

-- Paul Waldman: Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax idea couldn’t come at a better time

-- Jared Bernstein: The flat tax* falls flat for good reasons

CAPITAL INCOME* IS ANOTHER NAME FOR CAPITAL GAINS. THE AMOUNT IS THE MONEY REALIZED WHEN AN ASSET IS SOLD, AND IF SOLD AT A LOSS, THEN IT IS CALLED “CAPITAL LOSS.” GO TO: https://www.quora.com/What-is-capital-income


“RENT SEEKING”*

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentSeeking.html
Rent Seeking
By David R. Henderson

“Rent seeking” is one of the most important insights in the last fifty years of economics and, unfortunately, one of the most inappropriately labeled. Gordon Tullock originated the idea in 1967, and Anne Krueger introduced the label in 1974. The idea is simple but powerful. People are said to seek rents when they try to obtain benefits for themselves through the political arena. They typically do so by getting a subsidy for a good they produce or for being in a particular class of people, by getting a tariff on a good they produce, or by getting a special regulation that hampers their competitors. Elderly people, for example, often seek higher Social Security payments; steel producers often seek restrictions on imports of steel; and licensed electricians and doctors often lobby to keep regulations in place that restrict competition from unlicensed electricians or doctors.

But why do economists use the term “rent”? Unfortunately, there is no good reason. David Ricardo introduced the term “rent” in economics. It means the payment to a factor of production in excess of what is required to keep that factor in its present use. So, for example, if I am paid $150,000 in my current job but I would stay in that job for any salary over $130,000, I am making $20,000 in rent. What is wrong with rent seeking? Absolutely nothing. I would be rent seeking if I asked for a raise. My employer would then be free to decide if my services are worth it. Even though I am seeking rents by asking for a raise, this is not what economists mean by “rent seeking.” They use the term to describe people’s lobbying of government to give them special privileges. A much better term is “privilege seeking.”

It has been known for centuries that people lobby the government for privileges. Tullock’s insight was that expenditures on lobbying for privileges are costly and that these expenditures, therefore, dissipate some of the gains to the beneficiaries and cause inefficiency. If, for example, a steel firm spends one million dollars lobbying and advertising for restrictions on steel imports, whatever money it gains by succeeding, presumably more than one million, is not a net gain. From this gain must be subtracted the one-million-dollar cost of seeking the restrictions. Although such an expenditure is rational from the narrow viewpoint of the firm that spends it, it represents a use of real resources to get a transfer from others and is therefore a pure loss to the economy as a whole.

Krueger (1974) independently discovered the idea in her study of poor economies whose governments heavily regulated their people’s economic lives. She pointed out that the regulation was so extensive that the government had the power to create “rents” equal to a large percentage of national income. For India in 1964, for example, Krueger estimated that government regulation created rents equal to 7.3 percent of national income; for Turkey in 1968, she estimated that rents from import licenses alone were about 15 percent of Turkey’s gross national product. Krueger did not attempt to estimate what percentage of these rents were dissipated in the attempt to get them. Tullock (1993) tentatively maintained that expenditures on rent-seeking in democracies are not very large.

About the Author
David R. Henderson is the editor of this encyclopedia. He is a research fellow with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and an associate professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He was formerly a senior economist with President Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Further Reading

Krueger, Anne O. “The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society.” American Economic Review 64 (1974): 291–303.
Tullock, Gordon. Rent Seeking. Brookfield, Vt.: Edward Elgar, 1993.
Tullock, Gordon. “The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies and Theft.” Western Economic Journal 5 (1967): 224–232.
Categories: Basic Concepts Economic Regulation Government Policy


PROGRESSIVE VS REGRESSIVE TAX SCHEMES

http://home.hiwaay.net/~taylorc/politics/concepts/progressive-tax.html
Progressive and Regressive Taxes

A progressive tax is defined as a tax whose rate increases as the payer's income increases. That is, individuals who earn high incomes have a greater proportion of their incomes taken to pay the tax.

A regressive tax, on the other hand, is one whose rate increases as the payer's income decreases.

I'm beginning to suspect these terms were invented merely to make the U.S.' income tax appear more attractive.

Income tax is the only tax in the U.S. whose rate is tied directly to income. It is a progressive tax, according to the definition above; individuals and families with high incomes are taxed at a higher rate than individuals and families with low incomes.

Other taxes like sales tax are often called regressive taxes in order to make them compare poorly with income tax in terms of their "fairness". The rationale is that individuals or families at the low end of the income spectrum spend a higher proportion of their income than those at the high end. Combined with the fact that sales tax is tied to consumption rather than income, this leads some to the conclusion that low-income individuals and families pay a greater proportion of their incomes in sales taxes, therefore sales tax is regressive. You're supposed to read "regressive" as "unfair".

There are problems with the way "progressive" and "regressive" are used to describe tax structures.

None of the "regressive" taxes that are compared with the income tax are tied directly to income. Using inconsistent criteria for defining terms that are represented to be opposites hinders honest discussion.

Calling a tax on consumption "regressive" requires that one assume that an individual spends all of his income in ways that are subject to the tax. Otherwise, the reasoning that finds "regressive" taxes unfair gets even more farfetched.

When declaring "regressive" consumption-based taxes unfair in comparison with progressive taxes, proponents of progressive taxes overlook the fact that the EU, home of some of the most, erm*, progressive societies in the world, is perfectly happy with its 17.5 percent VAT, an entirely consumption-based tax.

Just about any tax, including property, luxury, and inheritance taxes, can be declared "regressive" if the sample group is chosen carefully. Dishonest? Probably. But only because the use of the word "regressive" when applied to taxation has its own problems with accuracy.

Curiously enough in my community, many of those who are proponents of the income tax on the premise that a progressive tax is "more fair" are also proponents of a state-sponsored lottery, which of course tends to have the same effect on the different income categories as a "regressive" tax. Apparently some "regressive" taxes are less unfair than others.

Chuck Taylor -- (Copyright) -- (Contact)

erm* -- THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ONOMATOPOEIC OR SOUND-BASED WORDS. I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS BEFORE, BUT GOOGLE RECOGNIZED IT. IT'S THE SAME AS "UMM." IT'S A CLEVER LITTLE APOLOGY FOR MAKING A PUN ON THE WORD PROGRESSIVE. FOR SOME REASON, SOME PEOPLE SEEM TO FEEL THAT THEY NEED TO APOLOGIZE FOR MAKING PUNS. WORD JOKES ARE AMONG MY FAVORITE KINDS.


IS A “FLAT TAX”* AS UNFAIR TO THE POOR AND CODDLING TO THE RICH AS I THINK IT MUST BE? CERTAINLY. WHO HAS PROPOSED FLAT TAXES IN THE PAST? REPUBLICANS, AND NOT ALL OF THEM. SEE: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/16/business/economy/republican-presidential-candidates-rally-around-flat-tax.html.

LOOK AT THIS TELLING DESCRIPTION ON THE REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: “ AND THE LOW TAX RATE ENCOURAGES THE POOR TO STRIVE TO EARN MORE.” WHO SAYS THIS FLAT TAX RATE WILL ACTUALLY BE A LOW ONE, AND ON THE MUCH SMALLER INCOME OF THE POOR, WHILE THE COSTS OF LIVING REMAIN THE SAME, HOW WILL THE POOR GAIN ECONOMICALLY? THE POOR ARE CHASTISED (AIDED) BY HAVING EVEN LESS MONEY TO LIVE ON, IN ORDER TO PUSH THEM TO THEIR MAXIMUM CAPABILITY AND BEYOND; THAT IS HOW IT “HELPS” THE POOR. IT CURES THE “MORAL DEFICIT” OF BEING POOR – THE INNATE “LAZINESS.”

DO BOTH GROUPS BELONG, EQUALLY, IN A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT? ONLY IF THERE IS A PROGRESSIVE TAX FORMAT. FOR MORE ON THIS, GO TO –

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/67246/1000091-Can-Flat-Taxes-be-Progressive-.pdf

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042815/progressive-tax-more-fair-flat-tax.asp
Is a progressive tax more fair than a flat tax?
BY INVESTOPEDIA Updated Dec 19, 2018

Progressive taxation versus flat taxation inspires ongoing debate, and both have proponents and critics. In the United States, the historical favorite is the progressive tax. Progressive tax systems have tiered tax rates that charge higher income individuals higher percentages of their income and offer the lowest rates to those with the lowest incomes. Flat tax plans generally assign one tax rate to all taxpayers. No one pays more or less than anyone else under a flat tax system. Both of these systems may be considered "fair" in the sense that they are consistent and apply a rational approach to taxation. They differ, however, in their treatment of wealth, and each system may be called "unfair" according to who benefits or is treated differently.

Supporters of the progressive system claim that higher salaries enable affluent people to pay higher taxes and that this is the fairest system because it lessens the tax burden of the poor. Since the poor have the smallest disposable incomes and spend a higher proportion of their money on basic survival needs, such as housing, this system allows them to keep more of their money. Affluent taxpayers are better able to provide for their physical needs and therefore are charged more. A flat tax would ignore the differences between rich and poor taxpayers. Some argue that flat taxes are unfair for this reason. Progressive taxes, however, treat the rich and poor differently, which is also unfair.

Flat tax has one tax rate. Everyone carries the same responsibility, and no one is unequally burdened, rich or poor. Taxes do not discourage high earners from earning more, and the low tax rate encourages the poor to strive to earn more. This reduces the potential deadweight loss of taxation and encourages good work ethics. This system does, however, risk taking too much money away from the poorest citizens.

Both tax policies have significant advantages and disadvantages that may prevent them from perfect fairness.

The Advisor Insight

This may be more of a social or political question than a financial question. The key issue you raise is one of "fairness." The concept of a progressive tax is fundamentally a simple one: The more you earn, the more taxes you pay, with the tax rate increasing incrementally as your income does. However, as the saying goes, "the devil is in the details" – at least in the details of the U.S. tax code, which has gotten so bloated and complicated that the system has lost its simplicity. This seems to be one of the key popularity drivers of a simple flat tax system: The progressive model may be fairer in theory, but the real fairness, or lack thereof, is how the system is implemented. Of course, there’s always the concern that if a flat tax were adopted, how long would it remain simple?

Ronald Mesler
We Protect Doctors, LLC
Boise, ID

WHO IS “WE PROTECT DOCTORS?” NOT AN ECONOMIC ADVISOR, BUT AN INSURANCE COMPANY -- https://www.weprotectdoctors.com/ FOR ALL PURPOSE NEEDS.



“BASIC INCOME” IS A TERM I HAVE HEARD MENTIONED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, INCLUDING BY BERNIE SANDERS. THIS WAS AN EXPERIMENT IN FINLAND TO SEE WHETHER PEOPLE WHO GET AN AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WILL PAY THEIR MOST BASIC NEEDS WILL CAUSE THEM, "INCENTIVIZE" THEM TO GET ANOTHER JOB OR START A BUSINESS. NOW THAT'S AN "ECONOMIST'S STATEMENT FOR YOU. THESE PEOPLE EITHER DON'T REALIZE OR WILL NOT RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT SOMETIMES PEOPLE FOR REASONS OTHER THAN SLOTH WILL BE UNABLE TO GET A JOB IN SPITE OF MAKING MANY APPLICATIONS, OR WHAT THEY GET DOESN'T PAY FOR THEIR NEEDS. IT'S HARD TO EXPLAIN THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT ALWAYS "ABLE" TO "PULL THEMSELVES UP BY THEIR BOOTSTRAPS." WHAT IT DOES TELL ME IS THAT THERE IS A NEED NOT JUST FOR MONEY BUT FOR THERAPEUTIC MENTAL HEALTH ATTENTION AT THAT TIME, WHICH MAY DISAPPEAR LATER. WATCH THIS VIDEO ON THE SUBJECT:

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-47092727/did-finland-s-basic-income-experiment-work


https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-47092727/did-finland-s-basic-income-experiment-work
Did Finland's basic income experiment work?
FEBRUARY 2, 2019 34 MIN AGO

Finland has just completed a major basic income experiment where 2,000 unemployed people were given €560 (£490) a month for two years, instead of their unemployment benefit.

The basic income was paid with no strings attached. Recipients weren't required to seek or accept jobs but still received the payment if they found a job.

The Finnish government wanted to see if this financial incentive encouraged people to get jobs or start businesses.

The BBC followed two participants, Tanja and Tuomas, for two years to see what impact free money had on their lives.

34m ago



**** **** **** ****

MOVING AWAY FROM ECONOMIC THINGS NOW, WE HAVE A SAD STORY FOR DEMOCRATS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THERE IS A RACIAL STORY, WHICH MOST ANYONE WOULD KNOW EVEN AT 25 YEARS OF AGE TO BE A VERY UNWISE AND DISRESPECTFUL THING TO DO. THE MAN WHO DID THAT IS AN UP AND COMING DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, UNTIL THIS STORY BROKE, THAT IS. THE GOOD NEWS, THOUGH, IS THAT IF HE STEPS ASIDE, HIS LT. GOVERNOR WILL TAKE OVER, AND HE IS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN. THE PROBLEM IS THAT NORTHAM HAS DECIDED THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO STEP DOWN. WILL THE STATE IMPEACH HIM? CAN IT? THERE WILL BE MORE INFORMATION IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO, I’M SURE.


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/democratic-presidential-candidates-northam-resign-60801183
Democratic presidential candidates say Northam should resign
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, ASSOCIATED PRESS JUPITER, Florida — Feb 2, 2019, 10:25 AM ET

PHOTOGRAPH -- The Associated Press
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., speaks during a news conference outside of his home, Friday, Feb. 1, 2019, in Newark, N.J. Racial tensions are looming over the early days of the Democratic Party’s presidential primary. Of nine declared candidates so far, just two are white men. Voters and political strategists alike are cheering such diversity, but some fear that another presidential contender of color in the era of deep racial divisions may hurt their ultimate goal of beating President Donald Trump.(AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

Most 2020 Democratic presidential candidates quickly joined the call for Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam to resign following the discovery of a racist photo in which he appeared more than 30 years ago.

Northam apologized twice Friday after the photo from his medical school yearbook surfaced, but the freshman governor's expressions of regret have not quieted calls for him to step down from the office he took over less than a month ago.

He appears to have almost no choice but to resign after losing support from Democrats in Virginia and beyond, including among the Democratic Party's historically diverse and growing field of 2020 candidates, which includes two African-American senators, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California.

"These images arouse centuries of anger, anguish, and racist violence and they've eroded all confidence in Gov. Northam's ability to lead," Booker said Friday on Twitter. "We should expect more from our elected officials. He should resign."

Booker had entered the presidential race that morning, which also was the start of Black History Month.

Harris said the "stain of racism should have no place in the halls of government. The Governor of Virginia should step aside so the public can heal and move forward together."

Added former U.S. housing secretary Julian Castro: "This behavior was racist and unconscionable. Governor Northam should resign."

The yearbook images were first published Friday afternoon by the conservative news outlet Big League Politics. The Virginian-Pilot later obtained a copy from Eastern Virginia Medical School, which Northam attended. The photo shows two people looking at the camera — one in blackface wearing a hat, bow tie and plaid pants; the other in a full Ku Klux Klan robe.

An Associated Press reporter saw the yearbook page and confirmed its authenticity at the medical school.

In a written apology Friday, Northam called the costume he wore "clearly racist and offensive" but didn't say which one he had worn. In a subsequent video statement, Northam said he was "deeply sorry" but remained committed to serving the "remainder of my term."

"I accept responsibility for my past actions and I am ready to do the hard work of regaining your trust," Northam said.

Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York also called on Northam to leave office, as did former Maryland Rep. John Delaney.

"There aren't two sets of rules for our friends and our foes: Right is right and wrong is wrong," Gillibrand said on Twitter late Friday. "Americans deserve to be respected by their leaders, and racism cannot be excused in our government or anywhere else. Having seen the photo, I believe Governor Northam should resign."

Delaney said the appearance of the photo would "impair his ability to have the kind of moral authority that is needed to lead people through the painful and important discussion about race relations in our country."

Former Vice President Joe Biden, also a potential 2020 presidential contender, added his voice, saying on Twitter: "Governor Northam has lost all moral authority and should resign immediately, Justin Fairfax is the leader Virginia needs now."

Northam's departure would mean Fairfax, the current lieutenant governor and only the second African-American to win statewide office in Virginia, would be the next governor. Northam's term was set to end in 2022.



https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/31/how-much-bezos-gates-buffet-could-pay-under-bernie-sanders-tax-plan.html
Here's how much Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett could pay under Bernie Sanders' tax plan
Catherine Clifford 3:47 PM ET Thu, 31 Jan 2019

PHOTOGRAPH -- Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Getty Images

As the adage goes, there are only two certainties in life: death and taxes. And if Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' new tax plan were to go into effect, death would trigger much higher taxes for the billionaire set.

Under Sanders' new tax plan announced Thursday, billionaires would be subject to a 77 percent estate tax, which is the tax levied on the cash, property, real estate and other assets ("everything you own or have certain interests in," according to the Internal Revenue Service) of a deceased person when it is transferred to another person. In 2018, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act put the estate tax at 40 percent after the first $11.18 million, according to the Internal Revenue Service.

"Our bill only applies to the richest 0.2% of Americans," Sanders tweeted earlier on Thursday.

According to estimates made by Sanders' office, here's what the new bill would establish for the wealthiest five billionaires in the United States:

(For the calculations, Sanders' office used the net worth list from Forbes, as of Monday, "and then applied our proposed rates" to determine what each billionaire would pay if the new tax plan were implemented, Sanders' spokesperson Josh Miller-Lewis tells CNBC Make It. To determine a baseline of what each billionaire would have to pay in estate tax under current law, Sanders' office applied the 40 percent estate tax rate on the Forbes net worth of the given person as of Monday.)

Amazon co-founder Jeff Bezos, 55, is currently set to pay $53 billion in estate taxes, and would have to pay $101 billion under Sanders' plan.
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, 63, is currently set to pay $38 billion in estate taxes, and would have to pay $74 billion under Sanders' plan.
Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett, 88, is currently set to pay $33 billion in estate taxes, and would have to pay $64 billion under Sanders' plan.
Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, 74, is currently set to pay $24 billion in estate taxes, and would have to pay $46 billion under Sanders' plan.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, 34, is currently set to pay $22 billion in estate taxes, and would have to pay $41 billion under Sanders' new plan.

Bernie Sanders
✔
@SenSanders
The fairest way to reduce wealth inequality, invest in the disappearing middle class and preserve our democracy is to enact a progressive estate tax on the inherited wealth of multi-millionaires and billionaires.

Today I'm introducing a bill to do that:https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/01/31/bernie-sanders-propose-dramatic-expansion-estate-tax-richest-americans-including-percent-rate-billionaires/ …

4,411
10:03 AM - Jan 31, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Bernie Sanders to propose dramatic expansion in estate tax on richest Americans, including 77...
Sanders, who will release the "For the 99.8% Act," is aiming to target the wealthiest 0.2 percent.

washingtonpost.com

1,616 people are talking about this

The proposed estate tax rates under Sanders' new plan are tiered and impact the top 0.2 percent of Americans: from $3.5 million up to $10 million in assets owned upon time of death, the tax rate would be 45 percent; from $10 million to $50 million, the tax rate would be 50 percent; and from greater than $50 million to $1 billion, the tax rate would be 55 percent tax.

Changing the estate tax is not unheard of: Indeed, the estate tax has fluctuated from year to year for most of the last 20 years "creating uncertainty for taxpayers and their advisors," the Joint Committee on Taxation says in a primer on the U.S. Federal Wealth Transfer Tax System published in 2015.

The Sanders' tax plan could make $2.2 trillion from 588 billionaires in the United States, according to a written statement from Sanders' office published Thursday. (The precise date as to when this $2.2 trillion could be reaped is "hard to say," Miller-Lewis tells CNBC Make It, because it's impossible to know when an estate tax will be levied since a person's time of death is unknown.)

The goal, which is a common theme for the progressive Senator from Vermont, is to stem the tide of wealth inequality.

"At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, when the three richest Americans own more wealth than 160 million Americans, it is literally beyond belief that the Republican leadership wants to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the top 0.2 percent," Sanders says in the written statement. "Our bill does what the American people want by substantially increasing the estate tax on the wealthiest families in this country and dramatically reducing wealth inequality. From a moral, economic, and political perspective our nation will not thrive when so few have so much and so many have so little."

Indeed, Gates, Bezos and Buffett own more wealth than the bottom half of the American population combined, or 160 million people, according to November 2017 report published by the Institute for Policy Studies, a left-leaning think tank based in Washington, D.C.

Representatives for Buffett, Ellison, Zuckerberg, Gates and Bezos did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

However, Buffett addressed Republicans' idea to eliminate the estate tax in an interview with Becky Quick on CNBC's Squawk Box in October 2017.

"I don't think I need a tax cut," Buffett said. "[I]f they passed the bill that they're talking about, I could leave $75 billion to a bunch of children and grandchildren and great grandchildren, and if I left it to 35 of them, they would each have a couple of billion dollars. They could put it out at 5 percent and have $100 million.

"Is that a great way to allocate resources in the United States?" Buffett continued. "That's what you are doing through the tax code is you are affecting the allocation of resources."

Still, some are fierce critics of the estate tax, even at current levels. "You work your whole life to build up a nest egg or a family-owned business or family farm. Then you pass away... Uncle Sam can swoop in and take over 40% of everything you've earned over a certain amount. It's just wrong," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady said in August 2017, when the estate tax was being considered then, according to CNN.

See also:

Billionaire Warren Buffett: 'I don't need a tax cut' in a society with so much inequality

Ocasio-Cortez's 70% tax plan gets fierce response, but even Warren Buffett says rich should pay more

Billionaire Warren Buffett on helping the poor: 'A rich family does not leave people behind'



THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING INTERVIEW WITH WARREN BUFFETT. HE ISN’T FROM THE “RIGHTWING” BRANCH OF THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS. I AM IMPRESSED WITH HIM.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/05/warren-buffett-on-why-rich-people-government-should-help-the-poor.html
Billionaire Warren Buffett on helping the poor: 'A rich family does not leave people behind'
Catherine Clifford 10:06 AM ET Wed, 5 Sept 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- Warren Buffett David A. Grogan | CNBC
Warren Buffett
VIDEO – CNBC INTERVIEW

In the U.S., we live in a market economy, says Warren Buffett.

And in such an economy, thanks to his investing prowess, Buffett, CEO and Chairman of holding company Berkshire Hathaway, is currently the third richest person in the world, worth $86.6 billion according to Forbes. He has such a nose for investing he has earned the nickname, "Oracle of Omaha," after the town in Nebraska from which he hails.

But what if money were only awarded for some other measure – like sports ability, for example? Buffett says he would be in trouble.

"If this was a sports economy, I'd starve to death. You could give me six hours of training every day and I could practice at night… And I wouldn't be any good," Buffett told CNN's Poppy Harlow at a charity lunch hosted at Smith & Wollensky steakhouse in New York City on Thursday. Buffett uses the hypothetical to make a point: "Your skills fit a market economy," he told Harlow, "my skills fit a market economy. Not everybody's do."

For those whose skills don't fit, it can mean financial struggle — and it's the job of the most successful and the government in a market economy to do something about that, he said.

"We want a market economy, but a rich family does not leave people behind," Buffett explained.

He's made the point before. "Everything should be devoted initially to getting greater productivity," said Buffett at Columbia University in 2017. "But people who fall by the wayside, through no fault of their own, as the goose lays more golden eggs, should still get a chance to participate in that prosperity. And that is where government comes in."

For example, the evolving economy "doesn't benefit the steelworker maybe in Ohio," Buffett on PBS Newshour in 2017. "And that's the problem that has to be addressed, because when you have something that's good for society, but terribly harmful for given individuals, we have got to make sure those individuals are taken care of."

On Thursday, Buffett (again) recommended updating the earned income tax credit, which is a tax benefit that helps those who are working but not earning much.

"The Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC or EIC, is a benefit for working people with low to moderate income. To qualify, you must meet certain requirements and file a tax return, even if you do not owe any tax or are not required to file. EITC reduces the amount of tax you owe and may give you a refund," according to the Internal Revenue Service.

"I think we could reform and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit," Buffett said. "People don't need a minimum wage, they need a maximum amount of cash in their pocket and the earned income tax credit rewards those who work but they also help the person whose skills don't fit a market economy."

In addition to recommending the government play an active role in wealth redistribution, Buffett does his personal part via philanthropy.

VIDEO -- Billionaire Warren Buffett says 'the real problem' with the US economy is people like him

Harlow interviewed Buffett on his 88th birthday, the same day he dined at Manhattan, New York steakhouse Smith & Wollensky with the winner of his annual charity lunch auction, which this year raised $3.3 million for the Glide foundation*.

But the lunch is only a fragment of Buffett's charitable efforts.

Along with billionaire Bill Gates, Buffett co-founded The Giving Pledge*, a public call for billionaires to give away more than half their wealth.

Even though many benefit from America's market economy, Buffett told Harlow "a disproportionately low number" of Wall Street billionaires have taken his pledge compared to other sectors.

Buffett says another group that is "generally are less inclined" to give away their money is what he calls "the inheritors."

"[T]hey feel they are breaking a covenant that their grandfather gave it to their father and their father gave it to them, so they don't feel like they should," said Buffett. "It's tough if it's all tied up in a family business, too."

Still, Buffett doesn't think they should keep it; instead, those who are lucky enough to have a fortune should help others who aren't.

"A lot of what was determined about us was the moment we were born…where we were born, who we were born to, I mean your zip code really is important in determining your future and … I've been lucky. You've been lucky. Most of our friends have been lucky...and a lot of people aren't lucky," said Buffett.

See also:

Lunch with Warren Buffett auctioned off for $3.3 million
Check out Warren Buffett's amazing Coke-themed birthday cake for his 88th
Why Warren Buffett raises money for this church in a rough part of San Francisco: 'They take people who have hit bottom and help bring 'em back'


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glide_Foundation
Glide Foundation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Glide Foundation is a charity organization that helps the homeless, based in San Francisco, California, associated with Glide Church.

It is known for working with investor Warren Buffett who has donated the proceeds from his eBay "Power Lunch with Warren Buffett" auctions to Glide. As of 2017, he had raised nearly $24 million for the Foundation.[1] The winning bid in 2006 was $620,100, won by Duan Yongping, a California investor.[2] In 2008, Mohnish Pabrai won the auction for $650,100.[3] The 2009 auction was won with a bid of $1.68 million by an anonymous bidder[4] In 2011 an anonymous bidder paid $2,626,411 for a lunch with Buffet.[5] The June 9, 2012 auction for lunch with Buffett yielded a record figure of $3,456,789; the highest figure paid for lunch with the investor. This number was tied at the 2016 auction.[6] The 2017 winning bid was $2.68 million.[7] The Glide auction's winners traditionally dine with Buffett at New York's Smith and Wollensky steak house. The restaurant donates at least $10,000 to Glide each year to host the auction lunch.[8]


http://www.glidefoundation.org/
Welcome to the T.S. & K.D. Glide Foundation
2019 Grant Application are submitted ONLINE ONLY! Click here to access the online application.

Thornton ("Tawny") S. Glide, Jr. and his wife, Katrina ("Scatter") Dangberg Glide, were long-time residents of the T.S. Glide Ranch in Yolo County, California. They owned and operated farms and ranches in and about Northern California. Their interests were horses and other animals, farming, preserving open spaces, and civic endeavors.

Upon their respective deaths in July 1995, they established the Thornton S. Glide, Jr. and Katrina D. Glide Foundation, a perpetual California charitable trust. Its purpose is to provide benefits for qualified organizations committed to animal protection organizations, other land and wildlife conservancy groups, agricultural purposes, preservation of land in its natural state, and opera, symphony, and other similar civic organizations. The recipients of such benefits must be charitable qualified as such under U.S. Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) and California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 23701(d).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glide_Memorial_Church
Glide Memorial Church
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Glide Memorial United Methodist Church is a church in San Francisco, California, a United Methodist Church, which opened in 1930. Although conservative until the 1960s, since then it has served as a counter-culture rallying point and has been one of the most prominently liberal churches in the United States. Glide is also famous for its Gospel Choir and numerous social service programs.


THE GIVING PLEDGE
https://givingpledge.org/About.aspx

The Giving Pledge is an effort to help address society’s most pressing problems by inviting the world’s wealthiest individuals and families to commit more than half of their wealth to philanthropy or charitable causes either during their lifetime or in their will.

In August 2010, 40 of America’s wealthiest individuals and couples joined together in a commitment to give more than half of their wealth away. Created by Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett, the Giving Pledge came to life following a series of conversations with philanthropists around the world about how they could collectively set a new standard of generosity among the ultra-wealthy.

“This is about building on a wonderful tradition of philanthropy that will ultimately help the world become a much better place.” – Bill Gates

The Giving Pledge is a simple concept: an open invitation for billionaires, or those who would be if not for their giving, to publicly dedicate the majority of their wealth to philanthropy. And it is inspired by the example set by millions of people at all income levels who give generously–and often at great personal sacrifice–to make the world better. Envisioned as a multi-generational effort, the Giving Pledge aims over time to help shift the social norms of philanthropy toward giving more, giving sooner, and giving smarter.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/01/trumps-rips-intel-naive-crossing-swords-dni-coats-again/2737141002/
'They are wrong!' Donald Trump crosses swords with intel chief Dan Coats – again
Maureen Groppe, USA TODAY Published 6:57 a.m. ET Feb. 1, 2019 | Updated 11:38 a.m. ET Feb. 1, 2019

VIDEO -- President Trump Says Respects Stacey Abrams, Who Will Give The Democratic Response Following SOTUTime

WASHINGTON – When Dan Coats was tapped by President Donald Trump to be his intelligence director, some of the Indiana Republican's former Senate colleagues wondered if he was too nice for the job.

“I’m not sure likeability and affability are the qualities I want in this position,” Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, told Coats at his confirmation hearing. "You’re going to be reporting to a president who may or may not want to hear what you have to say.”

That turned out to be an understatement.

"They are wrong!" Trump tweeted Wednesday, after Coats and other leaders of the intelligence services backed differing views of the president's on Iran and North Korea when testifying before Congress this week.

Trump backtracked Thursday, accusing the news media of incorrectly describing the testimony, after initially telling reporters that time will prove him right and his intelligence leaders wrong.

That's become a familiar pattern.

Here's a recap of the clashes between Trump and his director of national intelligence.

Dan Coats speaks at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee in Washington, D.C., Feb. 28, 2017. (Photo: Alex Brandon, AP)

Trump sides with Putin

At a news conference in last July, Trump appeared to accept Russian President Vladimir Putin's denial of interference in the 2016 elections over what Coats and others had said are undisputed facts.

"My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me, some others, they said they think it's Russia," Trump said as he stood next to Putin at a joint news conference between the two leaders following their talks in Helsinki. "I have President Putin. He just said it's not Russia. I will say this, I don't see any reason why it would be."

In response, Coats issued a statement saying the intelligence community has been "clear in our assessments of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy."

"We will continue to provide unvarnished and objective intelligence in support of our national security," Coats also said.

The next day, Trump said he had misspoken, and that he meant to say he saw no reason why it "wouldn't" be Russia that interfered.

Another reversal

The day after walking back those comments in July, Trump was asked by reporters whether Russia is still targeting the U.S.

"No," he said, again contradicting statements Coats had made.

After another public furor, the White House said Trump's response was misunderstood.

Spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said Trump was “saying ‘no’ to answering questions" from the reporters, not "no" to the question itself.

Coats' candid reaction

While some commentators urged Coats to resign to protect his honor and the honor of the intelligence community, he appeared unruffled.

"As long as I'm able to have the ability to seek the truth and speak the truth, I'm on board," Coats said when asked that week in July if he'd ever considered quitting.

But he couldn't keep his composure when, during the live interview with NBC's Andrea Mitchell at the Aspen Security Forum, news broke that Trump had invited Putin to Washington.

Coats grimaced.

"OK ...," he said, while laughing. "That's going to be special."

Coats also said he had not known in advance of Trump's 2017 White House meeting with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador, at which Trump revealed highly classified information. The meeting, Coats said, was "probably not the best thing to do."

Embedded video

ABC News
✔
@ABC
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats informed on stage at Aspen Security Forum that the Trump administration has invited Vladimir Putin to the White House.

"Say that again," he responds. https://abcn.ws/2Nu7fxf

9,349
3:29 PM - Jul 19, 2018
6,674 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Was Coats "Anonymous"?

Because of Coats' candor, he was immediately among those speculated to be the author of a September New York Times essay that offered blistering criticism of Trump. The anonymous writer, described by the Times as a "senior official in the Trump administration," described the president as erratic and amoral.

Coats called the speculation that his office penned the letter "patently false."

"We did not," Coats said in a statement. "From the beginning of our tenure, we have insisted that the entire (intelligence community) remain focused on our mission to provide the president and policymakers with the best intelligence possible."

Coats' increases transparency

In January, Coats issued publicly his agency's 2019 report on major threats, a departure from past years when the office generates both a public report and a separate classified version. The Washington Post described the change as "an effort by Coats to be more transparent in the face of sustained attacks from the president and his allies on the right against what they've taken to calling the Deep State."

In the reports' introduction, Coats said he is fortunate to lead an intelligence community "composed of the best and brightest professionals."

Contradicting Trump

Trump had a different description of that community Wednesday.

"The Intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran," Trump tweeted. "Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!"

While Trump defended his decision to withdraw the United States from the Iranian nuclear deal – in which the U.S. and allies eased sanctions on Tehran as it gave up the means to make nuclear weapons – the intelligence community said the country continues to live up to its end of the bargain.

"We do not believe Iran is currently undertaking activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear device,” Coats told senators Tuesday.

Trump continues to plan a second summit meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un – date and location to be determined – and expresses confidence that Kim is committed to junking his nuclear weapons programs.

But Coats also testified Tuesday that North Korea is "unlikely to completely give up its nuclear weapons."

In tweets, Trump said the U.S. relationship with North Korea is "the best it has ever been." He said they have stopped nuclear testing, and claimed a "decent chance of Denuclearization."

Blaming the media

Asked by reporters Thursday if he still has confidence in Coats and CIA Director Gina Haspel to give him good advice, Trump responded, "No, I disagree with certain things that they have said."

"I think I'm right, but time will prove that," Truimp added. "Time will prove me right, probably."

But, in later remarks to reporters and in a tweet, Trump said there was no difference in views between him and his intelligence leaders.

"Just concluded a great meeting with my Intel team in the Oval Office who told me that what they said on Tuesday at the Senate Hearing was mischaracterized by the media," Trump tweeted. "We are all on the same page!"

View image on Twitter

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Just concluded a great meeting with my Intel team in the Oval Office who told me that what they said on Tuesday at the Senate Hearing was mischaracterized by the media - and we are very much in agreement on Iran, ISIS, North Korea, etc. Their testimony was distorted press....

72.2K
4:40 PM - Jan 31, 2019
44.1K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

What's next?

Hours after that tweet, the New York Times released excerpts from a Thursday interview with Trump in which he was asked about Coats.

"I’m happy with Dan Coats. I am," Trump responded, before adding: "That doesn’t mean ...."

Asked if that's a change, Trump remained cryptic.

"Well, no, everybody changes," he said. "You know, this business, other than me, everybody changes."

Contributing: David Jackson and Will Cummings.


THE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY HAS ALWAYS HAD SEVERAL KINDS OF BAD APPLES IN IT. USUALLY IT’S WHAT MUST BE CALLED SADISM. IT’S LIKE THE CHILD SEXUAL ABUSERS. WHERE WILL THOSE MEN/WOMEN GO TO WORK? SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES.

SADISTS WANT TO BEAT PEOPLE BLACK AND BLUE AND GET AWAY WITH IT, OR LITERALLY HUNT THEM DOWN AND SHOOT THEM. WHY? FOR SPORT, IN SOME CASES, AND BECAUSE THEY ARE INSANE IN OTHERS. FOR THAT THEY GO TO WORK AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS LARGE AND SMALL, IN RURAL AREAS AND MAJOR CITIES.

THERE IS ANOTHER ARTICLE TODAY ABOUT POLICE OFFICERS WHO, IN APPRECIABLE NUMBERS, APPARENTLY, WHEN CALLED TO A HOME ON AN EMERGENCY LINE GO IN AND SEARCH THEIR HOUSE LOOKING FOR ANYTHING THEY WOULD LIKE TO STEAL. THAT PRACTICE HAS BEEN LEGALIZED AS CIVIL FORFEITURE. THEN THEY KEEP THE MONEY ETC. AND MAY OR MAY NOT ATTEND TO THE CRIME.

NOW IN THIS CASE, ANOTHER KIND OF FRAUD HAS EMERGED – A SCAM ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND THE CITY. PERHAPS POLICE AND OTHERS IN POSITIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY OVER HUMANS SHOULD BE GIVEN A TEST TO DETECT A LAX ATTITUDE IN GENERAL. PERHAPS ALSO, IN THIS CASE, THE SITUATION DEVELOPED BECAUSE THERE WAS TOO LITTLE SUPERVISION. TO FIND THIS MANY CASES, I THINK THAT MUST BE A LARGE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

IS EVERYBODY GOING NUTS IN THIS SOCIETY? EVERYBODY SAYS THEY ARE CHRISTIAN AND THEN DON’T FOLLOW THE MOST BASIC PRINCIPLES. WHEN I SEE A STORY LIKE THIS, I WONDER WHY SOME POLICE OFFICERS FEEL THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THESE THINGS. IT SHOULDN’T MATTER THAT THE PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE OR CAR ARE NON-WHITE, UNLESS TO CAUSE THE POLICE TO BE FAIRER TO THEM, SINCE SOCIETY AS A WHOLE TENDS TO FALL DOWN IN THAT WAY.

SOME OFFICERS HAVE BEEN IN THE NEWS FOR SPECIFICALLY HELPING THE NEEDY INSTEAD, AND THAT WARMS MY HEART; BUT I WANT TO SEE MORE OF THEM DO THE HEROIC AND HUMANITARIAN THINGS. IF THEY WERE DISCIPLINED PROPERLY OVER THE CROOKED AND THE CRUEL THINGS THEY DO, I BELIEVE FEWER OFFICERS WOULD RUN THE RISK OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH CRIMES. RIGHT NOW THERE ARE TOO OFTEN ZERO CONSEQUENCES, SO WHAT CAN WE EXPECT? MORE VERY SICK SITUATIONS, APPARENTLY.

AS FOR THIS OVERTIME SCANDAL, THAT’S AN ORDINARY THING THAT THE MORE DISHONEST PEOPLE MIGHT DO, BUT NOT THIS MANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE SAME WORK SITE UNLESS THE MANAGEMENT IS EXTREMELY LOOSE, UNLESS OF COURSE THEY DO COMPARE NOTES WITH EACH OTHER IN A FAIRLY OPEN WAY, SHOWING THE NEW OFFICERS HOW TO DO IT, ETC.

http://www.cbs8.com/story/39894139/dozens-of-california-officers-on-leave-in-overtime-scandal
Dozens of California officers on leave in overtime scandal
Posted: Feb 01, 2019 8:49 PM EST
Updated: Feb 01, 2019 8:49 PM EST

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The California Highway Patrol has suspended the police powers of dozens of officers and sergeants in the agency's East Los Angeles office after discovering fraudulent overtime records for thousands of unworked hours in a case that could lead to criminal charges, officials said Friday.

An investigation uncovered at least $360,000 in fraudulent overtime pay collected by officers and approved by their supervising sergeants between early March 2016 and into 2018, said Chief Mark Garrett, head of the agency's Southern Division.

He declined to say exactly how many officers and supervisors are believed involved, adding that the investigation isn't over. Most of the officers and sergeants involved have been placed on paid administrative leave and their peace officer powers have been removed, he said.

"This information has shaken us to our core," Garrett said. "I'm personally taken back and angry about it."

Investigators are sharing details of the probe with county prosecutors, who will consider whether to file criminal charges in the case, Garrett said, adding that he believes charges are appropriate.

"We have every reason to believe they were committing theft from the taxpayers of California," he said. "We feel that criminal activity occurred."


California Highway Patrol Commissioner Warren Stanley said he's "angered and appalled."

"Any employee who violates policy and law sullies the public trust all of us work hard to earn every day," he said in a news release.

The East Los Angeles office is the only one of the agency's 103 commands believed involved in the fraudulent overtime, Garrett said, adding that the others have passed initial assessments of their overtime records and will undergo more elaborate audits.

Suspicions about the fraudulent overtime arose last March after command staff in the East Los Angeles office noticed anomalies in overtime records, Garrett said.

All of the overtime logged for hours that weren't worked stem from assignments with road crews from the California Department of Transportation. Officers can get overtime pay between $86 to $104 an hour with the Caltrans details, which involve making sure the transportation crews stay safe while they conduct maintenance.


https://www.vox.com/2019/2/1/18206655/mueller-don-jr-trump-tower-blocked-calls-mystery
The news about Donald Trump Jr.’s mysterious calls before the Trump Tower meeting, explained
The president is claiming vindication after new reports, but Democrats still have questions.
By Andrew Prokopandrew@vox.com Feb 1, 2019, 10:50am EST

PHOTOGRAPH – DONALD J TRUMP JR., William Campbell-Corbis via Getty Images

When Donald Trump Jr. testified to Congress about his meeting with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign, he was asked about two calls he placed to blocked phone numbers while setting up the meeting. The president’s son said he couldn’t remember whom he called — and Democrats questioned whether he called his father.

But Senate investigators have determined the calls were not in fact to Trump’s number, CNN reported Thursday. Instead, per the New York Times, Don Jr. called NASCAR CEO Brian France and investor Howard Lorber. Now, Trump is claiming vindication. But Democrats still have many questions.

The mysterious calls came under scrutiny because President Trump has long claimed that he knew nothing about his son’s meeting — at which Don Jr. was offered incriminating information about Hillary Clinton from the Russian government — in advance. (Trump’s team has claimed the meeting ended up being uneventful and inconsequential.)

Democrats have long been suspicious of this claim, and have looked for evidence showing Trump did know. The “blocked call from Don Jr. to Trump” was one theory proposed about how he could have found out. In particular, one of the blocked calls took place on June 6, 2016, just before Don Jr. called back Emin Agalarov, the Russian-Azerbaijani pop star who helped set up the meeting.

According to these reports, though, the blocked calls weren’t to Trump’s number after all. That of course doesn’t rule out other ways Trump could have found out about the meeting in advance. (He could have been told in person, for instance.) House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff said he still wanted to examine the information for himself. But the president claimed vindication anyway:


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Just out: The big deal, very mysterious Don jr telephone calls, after the innocent Trump Tower meeting, that the media & Dems said were made to his father (me), were just conclusively found NOT to be made to me. They were made to friends & business associates of Don. Really sad!

91.6K
10:03 PM - Jan 31, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
43.4K people are talking about this

Some commentators were intrigued by the fact that one of Don Jr.’s blocked calls was to developer Howard Lorber, who the Washington Post wrote in 2016 had “deep ties to Russia” and was even involved in an older effort to build a Trump Tower Moscow.

Mueller has been investigating at least three events involving Don Jr.

The news about the blocked calls was treated by some as great news for Trump — for instance, National Review’s Jonah Goldberg called it “a significant blow to one of the more popular collusion storylines,” and Washington Post columnist Max Boot tweeted, “If accurate this would undermine a collusion case against the president.”

But to put the development in context, the “blocked calls” was just one of a broader set of questions about Don Jr.’s Trump Tower meeting. And that meeting isn’t even the only thing Don Jr. is being investigated for.

In fact, there are at least three separate events involving Don Jr. that special counsel Robert Mueller has devoted significant effort to probing.

1) The Trump Tower Russian meeting: This is the June 9, 2016, meeting between Don Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, and a few others, set up with the promise of dirt on Hillary Clinton coming from the Russian government.

While some have been focused on the question of what Donald Trump knew in advance of the meeting, I argued last year that the far more important question is what truly happened during and after the meeting. The Trump team claims it was an unproductive discussion that led nowhere, and if that’s true, then the whole thing may have been a bad idea but was in the end inconsequential.

2) The Trump Tower Moscow talks: These are the efforts from Michael Cohen, kept secret from the public during the 2016 campaign. Mueller recently charged Cohen with lying about the extent of talks and Russian government officials’ involvement in them. And the special counsel wrote in the charging document that Cohen had briefed “family members” of Donald Trump about the project, which was widely taken as a reference to Don Jr.

3) The other Trump Tower meeting: The New York Times also reported last May that Don Jr. took a second meeting about potential foreign assistance with winning the election, in August 2016.

No Russians were present — the meeting instead involved George Nader (an adviser to the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates), Erik Prince (an American private security contractor), and Joel Zamel (an Israeli “social media manipulation” specialist. It is not clear what happened as a result of this meeting, but Mueller has reportedly probed it.

So the news about the blocked calls is a significant bit of new information — but hardly a definitive exoneration of the president and his son.

For more on the Mueller probe, follow Andrew Prokop on Twitter and check out Vox’s guide to the Trump-Russia investigation.


THE “STRAIGHT MAN” TO A GREAT COMEDY TEAM HAS DIED. I’M SORRY TO HEAR IT. HE WAS AS FUNNY IN HIS WAY AS HIS WIFE, AND THE WHOLE SHOW WAS WONDERFUL. IT’S COMEDY THAT MAKES US LAUGH BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW SOMEONE LIKE THAT, BUT IT’S THAT LITTLE BIT EMBARRASSING AT THE SAME TIME. FOR INSTANCE, THE FAMILY NAME IS “BUCKET,” BUT HIS WIFE ALWAYS PRETENTIOUSLY PRONOUNCES IT AS “BOUQUET!” SHE ALSO DOES DOZENS OF EQUALLY RIDICULOUS THINGS, CARRIED OUT WITH CONSIDERABLE CHARM. SHE’S SOMEWHERE BETWEEN LUCILLE BALL AND GRACEY ALLEN. HER SISTER AND BROTHER IN LAW ARE BOTH EQUALLY FUNNY, AND THE NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR AND THE VICAR OF THE CHURCH, ARE, AS WELL, AS THEY GO TO RIDICULOUS LENGTHS TO AVOID HYACINTH BUCKET. I ENJOY COMEDY LIKE THIS BECAUSE IT’S TOTALLY FREE OF ANYTHING SERIOUS. FOR A BIOGRAPHY ABOUT SWIFT, GO TO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Swift.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-47095343
Entertainment & Arts
Clive Swift: Keeping Up Appearances star dies at 82
FEBRUARY 1, 2019 4 hours ago

PHOTOGRAPH -- Swift spent six years playing Richard to Patricia Routledge's Hyacinth

Actor Clive Swift, known to millions as Hyacinth Bucket's hen-pecked husband Richard in BBC One's 90s sitcom Keeping Up Appearances, has died aged 82.

Swift, who spent 10 years at the RSC before breaking into television, also acted in such series as Peak Practice, Born and Bred and The Old Guys.

He spent six years playing Richard opposite Dame Patricia Routledge.

The role saw him patiently tolerate her ham-fisted and invariably thwarted attempts at social climbing.

Off-screen he co-founded The Actors Centre, a meeting place for members of his profession in central London.

Image caption
He went on to appear with Roger Lloyd Pack in The Old Guys
Born in Liverpool in 1936, he had three children with his ex-wife, the novelist Margaret Drabble.

Swift's many roles included a part in Alfred Hitchcock's 1972 film Frenzy and as King Arthur's adopted father in 1981 film Excalibur.

Many years later, he would play Hitchcock in a BBC radio play called Strangers on a Film.

Swift made a number of appearances in Doctor Who, most recently in the 2007 episode Voyage of the Damned.

According to his agent, the actor died at his home on Friday after a short illness, surrounded by his family.

Skip Twitter post by @BeingBoycie
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

John Challis
✔
@BeingBoycie
So sorry to hear that Clive Swift has http://died.My condolences to his family and to his son Joe. Lovely to see them here together enjoying a bit of cricket.

440
11:36 AM - Feb 1, 2019
87 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Report
End of Twitter post by @BeingBoycie
Skip Twitter post by @DreyfusJames
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

James Dreyfus
✔
@DreyfusJames
Loved this extremely talented, subtle actor. RIP the wonderful Clive Swift.

1,227
11:14 AM - Feb 1, 2019
247 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Report
End of Twitter post by @DreyfusJames
Skip Twitter post by @Morris__Bright

Morris Bright MBE
@Morris__Bright
Clive Swift was a wonderful character actor. As adept at drama as at comedy. Diverse roles ... from Shakespeare to Hitchcock and #DoctorWho to the much harangued husband of Hyacinth Bucket (pronounced Bouquet). A sad loss.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-47095343 …

214
11:43 AM - Feb 1, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Clive Swift with Patricia Routledge in Keeping Up Appearances
Keeping Up Appearances' Clive Swift dies
The actor paid Hyacinth Bucket's henpecked husband Richard in the popular BBC One 90s sitcom.

bbc.co.uk
65 people are talking about this
Report
End of Twitter post by @Morris__Bright
Follow us on Facebook, on Twitter @BBCNewsEnts, or on Instagram at bbcnewsents. If you have a story suggestion email entertainment.news@bbc.co.uk.


VIDEO --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEmznMX-jV0
Keeping Up Appearances Season 1 Episode 1


THIS TERM “KOVFEFE” IS WHAT I THOUGHT IT PROBABLY WAS, THOUGH I WILL ADMIT THAT I DID SEARCH THE TERM, INCLUDING USING THE GOOGLE APP CALLED “TRANSLATE.” I FOUND SOMETHING IN A MIDDLE EUROPEAN LANGUAGE. CUTE. AND HARMLESS, FOR ONCE. UNLESS IT WAS RUSSIAN?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-covfefe-sean-spicer-cliff-sims_us_5c514570e4b0f43e410c3bba
MEDIA 01/30/2019 05:27 am ET
Ex-Trump Aide Dishes On Spicer’s Bizarre ‘Covfefe’ Defense Of Trump
Cliff Sims said the incident was “one of the most hilarious things I’ve seen in my life.”
headshot
By David Barden

VIDEO -- Donald Trump instructed former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer to cover up the president’s “covfefe” blunder. That’s according to former aide Cliff Sims.

Donald Trump instructed former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer to cover up the president’s “covfefe” blunder. That’s according to former aide Cliff Sims.


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Who can figure out the true meaning of "covfefe" ??? Enjoy!

193K
5:09 AM - May 31, 2017
Twitter Ads info and privacy
122K people are talking about this

At the time, Spicer refused to admit that Trump had made an error. Instead, Spicer maintained that “the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant.”

Sims recalled the incident as “one of the most hilarious things I’ve seen in my life,” telling CNN’s Anderson Cooper that Trump instructed Spicer to “just tell them the people that need to know [what it meant], know.”

Check it out in the clip above.