John Sabourin, CFP @jvsabs

One of the load-bearing claims behind pro-tariff populism is that recent decades of globalization and trade liberalization have been a disaster for American workers. Let’s examine that claim against the evidence. 🧵

John Lettieri @LettieriDC

a year ago

The “globalization ruined everything” crowd is simply unable to reconcile their claims with this graph.

544 564 4K 596K 518

Why do economists worry so much about the economic impact associated with tariffs? Putting this out there so there is some clarity on why most economist worry about tariffs, which are at best a blunt tool, to cure what ails us. When used to cure so many problems at once, beware of law of unintended consequences. A top 10 list 1) Regressive - tariffs are a tax which raise the cost of goods across the boards with no wiggle room for what household or firms earns. That tends to hit low & middle income households and smaller & midsized businesses, with narrow profit margins larger, disproportionately hard and spurs inequality. 2) Stoke uncertainty - Countries feel compelled to retaliate with their own trade barriers & trade tensions tend to escalate, even though that leaves everyone worse off. The result is higher levels of uncertainty, measures of which have already lapsed the pandemic on a global scale. That acts as yet another tax on economic activity; it spurs a reluctance to make big investment decisions by firms and households. Preemptive sayings picks up as people hunker down. That uncertainty tightens credit conditions, especially for those most exposed to tariffs, which further inhibits growth. 3) Higher inflation - tariffs are a tax on imports. They cascade through supply chains which raise costs, many of which are passed along to consumers. That narrows profits margins & erodes demand which simultaneously stokes inflation & stems growth, which together can create stagflation. 4) Higher job losses than job creation - Tariffs reduce competition, with the most protected industries not hiring enough to offset the blow to the hardest hit industries. A recession is now more probable. 5) Spurs bureaucratic waste - Collecting tariffs is costly and boosts administrative overhead and waste. It incentivizes firms to lobby for waivers and can spur fraud for firms to curry favor with those in power. 6) Undermines productivity growth - Tariffs reduce competition, divert investment to favored industries as opposed to the most productive, and stifles investment in and adoption of new technologies. 7) Poor revenue generators - due to the regressive nature of tariffs as a tax and the dampening effect they have on demand, they tend to generate much less than what is estimated in terms of revenues. 8) Reduces competitiveness of exports - The blow to productivity, tighter credit standards & diversion of resources to protected sectors diminishes our ability to export as well as import. 9) Much worse at removing trade barriers across our trading partners than trade pacts - tend to stoke retaliation rather than cooperation in removing trade barriers that disproportionately hurt some industries and workers. Harder boarders reduce the funds and flow of workers needed to upskill and compete more effectively. They make economies smaller instead of larger. 10) Stokes nationalism or worse - The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 triggered a trade war between the US and 26 countries. Those shifts caused global trade to plunge 67%, which along for overwhelming reparations on Germany in the wake of WWI sowed the seeds of WWII. That is why we had the Marshal Plan following WWII to increase economic linkages between countries and reduce the risks of another global war. 💔

this is…incredibly stupid eu: $235.6bn surplus, $605.8bn exports, 235.6/605.8 = 39% claimed tariffs charged indonesia: $17.9bn surplus, $28.1bn exports, 17.9/28.1 = 64% claimed tariffs charged india: $45.7bn surplus, $87.4bn exports, 45.7/87.4 = 52% claimed tariffs charged vietnam: $123.5bn surplus, $136.6 exports, 123.5/136.6 = 90% claimed tariffs charged which explains why the “tariffs charged to the usa” column looked made up.

10 Rules That Will Make You Dangerous: 1. 80/20 Principle:

Trump called Canada a ‘tariff abuser.’ Does Ottawa mistreat American importers? bnnbloomberg.ca/business/2025/…

(1/3) It needs repeating: in 1994, Ukraine was persuaded to give up its nuclear weapons to Russia in return for the US, the UK, and Russia guaranteeing Ukraine’s sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity.

Shoeshine boys, irrational exuberance, strippers w/5 houses, magazine covers and other signs of the top awealthofcommonsense.com/2024/12/signs-…

My latest @financialpost article provides rebuttals for some of the common platitudes that are used to try to support a capital gains inclusion rate increase in CDA: “Last week, I appeared as a witness before the House of Commons Finance Committee regarding the proposed capital gains inclusion rate increase, and it was not surprising to hear the Liberal and NDP committee members, and their witnesses, go on about how great the capital gains inclusion rate proposal is. Frankly, it’s exhausting to listen to such nonsense. Some of that nonsense? “Studies have concluded that a high capital gains inclusion rate — or full taxation — of capital gains has no impact on a country’s economic results.” Yeah, right. For every such study, I’ll show you three that say otherwise… Others go on and on about “tax breaks” or “fairness” when it’s obvious they do not have a fulsome understanding of our country’s tax system. But my favourite is “a buck is a buck is a buck.” That line is a summarized phrase from the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Taxation.. …the commission said the following with respect to capital gains: “A dollar gained through the sale of a share, bond or piece of real property bestows exactly the same economic power as a dollar gained through employment or operating a business....” Thus, the famous “a buck…” line was born…I do agree that the result of various economic activities, “a buck,” is the same, but the efforts that go into creating that buck are certainly not… In 1969, the government of the day — gasp…the Liberals — agreed that capital gains should indeed be taxable, but rejected the commission’s logic.. “The government rejects the proposition that every increase in economic power, no matter what its source, should be treated the same for tax purposes. This proposition, put forward forcefully by the Royal Commission on Taxation, has often been summarized rather inelegantly as ‘a buck is a buck is a buck.’..” I agree that phrase is rather inelegant and…too simplistic... “Put me on record as an advocate for a low inclusion rate…since that lower inclusion rate provides incentive and acknowledgement of a key issue that most people experience when they originally invest capital to generate such gains. That key differentiator is ‘risk,'” I said in my opening remarks at the recent committee meeting. Employment risk is not entrepreneurial or investor risk..For those who say it is, I often challenge them to “put their money where their mouth is” and become an entrepreneur…Sweat a bit about making payroll or the mortgage payments on your building. Take some real business risk. If you accept my challenge, I’m guessing you’ll soon stop trumpeting your former rallying cries of “fairness” and “a buck is a buck is a buck.” You might then truly understand why it’s important to have governments that encourage entrepreneurship, with preferential treatment of capital gains being one of those policy tools to provide such encouragement.”financialpost.com/personal-finan…

1.

This is Zig Ziglar. The man Tony Robbins worshipped like a god. He taught Tony a philosophy that made him one of the wealthiest humans alive... Here's the philosophy:

My latest @financialpost article discusses @FraserInstitute’s 2024 annual Report on how much the average Canadian family spends on taxes vs the necessities of life. The answer for 2023: 43% on taxes vs 35.6% for the necessities (food, clothing, shelter). I’m always disgusted by that. From the article: “The fact that the average Canadian family now pays — and has for a while — more in taxes than the necessities of life is mind-boggling. When I speak on this subject at lectures or conferences, I often test the audience to see if they know what the average Canadian family pays in taxes compared to the basic necessities of life. The guesses I get are usually way off. When the actual right answer is given, there are often surprised looks and some audible gasps. However, when the logic is explained in more detail, the audience mostly understands… The spillover effect is damaging. For example, with less disposable income, some may not be able to purchase a home for quite some time if ever. While the root cause of Canada’s current housing shortage is mostly self-inflicted given very poor federal immigration policies (we’re taking in far more immigrants than we’re able to house), less disposable income for Canadians is also a contributing factor especially with increased prices (since demand exceeds supply)… Overall, Canadians need to genuinely reflect on whether they are getting good value for their tax dollars. Yes, I understand that taxes are one of the prices we pay for a stable country that provides critical infrastructure and support for its most vulnerable citizens. But there are limits... For example, the population of the federal public service in 2015 was 257,034 people. As of March 31, 2024, it has grown to 367,772. That’s an increase of 110,738 or 43.1 per cent in nine years, far above the 15.2 per cent increase in the overall population of Canada during that time period. That’s incredible. Taking this analysis a bit further, the Canada Revenue Agency’s headcount during 2015 was 40,059 people. For 2024, it’s 59,155 or a 47.6 per cent increase. The CRA has an important job to do in administrating Canada’s tax legislation. However, have Canadians received good value for such a dramatic increase in the CRA headcount? My opinion is an emphatic “no.” I say this because of my experiences of long telephone wait times to discuss routine matters, numerous and lengthy delays in processing objections, delays in the processing of routine credits such as foreign tax credits, audits for matters that are wholly ridiculous, along with the frustrating incompetence of many new hires. Former United States President Ronald Reagan once famously said: “The government’s view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving it, subsidize it.” There’s a lot of wisdom in that quote. Canada, it’s well past time to demand more value for our taxation dollars.”

Thanks for reading! These threads take time to write, pay it forward! 1) Follow me @brettboettcher1 for more on helping men become healthier and stronger leaders for their family. 2) Retweet the original tweet below to share with your audience:

Brett Boettcher @brettboettcher1

2 years ago

Heart disease is the leading cause of death But it’s insulin resistance that causes heart disease, strokes, cancers and other inflammatory conditions Since your doctor won’t help you avoid it, here are 42 sentences that will:

39 581 2K 760K 3K

My latest @financialpost article discusses the fact that the Canadian capital gains inclusion rate increase draft legislation is still not available: “Unfortunately, the budget did not have detailed draft legislation to specifically lay out how this proposal will work and we still do not have such details… Since April 16, tax practitioners have fielded an unending number of questions from people wondering what they should do. Unfortunately, tax practitioners and their clients are planning in the dark. You might think that legislation to change the capital gains inclusion rate should be pretty easy to draft. But you would be incorrect. Details matter. For example, how will capital-loss carry-forwards now work? Will the government enable a one-time election — effective June 25 — like it did when it repealed the old $100,000 capital gains deduction (which became effective Feb. 22, 1994) to effectuate dispositions? Or will it only respect legal dispositions? How exactly will the triggered gains interact with the new/amended Alternative Minimum Tax? These types of questions are only scratching the surface... But wait. Our illustrious finance minister last week announced that the legislative package will be released before the House rises for summer recess on June 21. That’s good, isn’t it? Well, no, it isn’t. If the draft legislation is released on, say, June 14, that leaves practitioners a whopping five business days to absorb the details and try to give proper advice to a whole host of people. Not good… I’ll happily debate any academic or economist who thinks this proposal will be good for Canada. But be warned: if you accept my challenge, you need to come armed with real-life examples of how the capital gains inclusion rate increase will make life better for the average Canadian, investor, entrepreneur and pensioner… I’m not interested in academic theories, formulas and studies that are not tested against behavioural change and real-life examples. I live real life every day and while I’m certainly open to different views and experiences, my real-life experience (combined with a strong knowledge of theory and policy) of how bad tax and economic policy impact everyday Canadians is pretty compelling. As the 1700s German philosopher Immanuel Kant once wrote: “Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play.” Very wise and true. Despite the massive pushback, Canadians may have to wait for an election and government change to have the right thing done (scrapping the capital gains inclusion rate increase). In the meantime, at a minimum, the recommendations of the joint committee and CPA Canada should be followed by delaying implementation to Jan. 1, 2025, to give Canadians enough time to seek advice after tax professionals have fully absorbed the details. Planning in the dark is never a good thing.” CDNs need to continue to push back against this nonsense. financialpost.com/personal-finan…

nationalpost.com/opinion/libera…

Heart disease is the leading cause of death But it’s insulin resistance that causes heart disease, strokes, cancers and other inflammatory conditions Since your doctor won’t help you avoid it, here are 42 sentences that will:

The most powerful paradoxes of life: 1. The Failure Paradox You have to fail more to succeed more. Our transformative moments of growth often stem directly from our toughest moments of failure. Don't fear failure—learn to fail smart and fast. Never fail the same way twice.

People with checklists complete their work 40% faster But 99% of them are making their checklists wrong. Here's how to do it right: (Using psychology)

@LynAldenContact

Win Smart, CFA @WinfieldSmart

3 years ago

AMAZING VISUALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT INTEREST PAYMENTS 😳

91 696 1K 1.3M 450