Contemporary politics,local and international current affairs, science, music and extracts from the Queensland Newspaper "THE WORKER" documenting the proud history of the Labour Movement.
MAHATMA GANDHI ~ Truth never damages a cause that is just.
Only one in five Americans with right-wing outlook said they had a lot of trust in scientists.
Oil
refinery stacks in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Nearly two thirds of US
participants in the Pew Research Center poll said the government was
doing too little to address the climate crisis.
People
in the US are more sharply divided along political lines when it comes
to science and environmental issues than in other parts of the world,
new research shows.
Globally, people who see
themselves on the left side of politics are more likely to be concerned
about the environment than those who see themselves as being on the
right or in the centre ground.
But in the US, that divide is much sharper, according to an international survey by the Pew Research Center.
About four in 10 US citizens who are on the right politically would
prioritise protecting the environment, even if it caused slower economic
growth and some loss of jobs, compared with 87% of those on the left.
In Europe, Australia, Canada, Brazil and South Korea,
the divide was much less marked. Of those on the right in the UK, 68%
would prioritise the environment, similar to the numbers in Italy,
Sweden, Poland, Spain and France. On the left in the UK, 84% would
prioritise environmental protection, similar to the proportion in other
European countries.
The polls, published on
Tuesday, were undertaken earlier this year, before the coronavirus
outbreak reached pandemic proportions.
Overall,
there was still a clear majority who supported protecting the
environment in the US, at nearly two-thirds (64%) of the population,
with a similar number (63%) saying the government was doing too little
to address the climate crisis. About half of respondents said climate change was a very serious problem, and that human activity contributed a great deal to climate change.
Only
one in five people with right-wing political views said they had a lot
of trust in scientists, compared with more than six in 10 people on the
left, in the US.
The Pew results show that
people in 20 nations around the world have a strong regard for
scientists generally, with about eight in 10 globally saying government
investment in scientific research was worthwhile.
Cary
Funk, the director of science and society research at Pew, said: “These
findings showcase the generally positive views that publics around the
world hold for scientists and their work, as well as ideological fault
lines in many places over how much to trust scientists.”
Respondents were asked about the preventive health benefits of childhood vaccines, such as those for measles, mumps and rubella.
In Sweden, a majority (84%) said the benefits were high, but only 49%
said the same in Russia. In the US, one in 10 people said there were no
preventive health benefits from such vaccines, and 37% said there was a
high or medium risk of side-effects.
In the UK,
about six in 10 people said they thought the country’s achievements in
science were above average, or the best in the world. Nearly seven in 10
said the UK government was not taking enough action on the climate crisis.
The fallout from the New York Times bombshell investigation
into two decades of Trump’s tax returns filtered through Monday’s
late-night shows, as hosts reacted to the revelation that Trump paid merely $750 in taxes
in 2016 and 2017. “Seven hundred and fifty dollars!” Stephen Colbert
exclaimed on The Late Show. “Trump paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 and he
screwed the country way more.”
The
Times also found that Trump paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the
previous 15 years, partly because of questionable “business expenses”
including more than $70,000 to style his hair
when he hosted The Apprentice. “He spent $70,000 on … that?” Colbert
deadpanned. “I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but he should’ve
paid more.”
Additionally, in 2010, Trump
claimed and received a tax refund of $72.9m – a refund the IRS has not
confirmed is legal, and whose penalties would cost Trump $100m. And
“there’s a good ole chance that good ole fake billionaire President
Trump wouldn’t be able to pay that bill,” Colbert added, as the New York
Times revealed his businesses have accrued chronic losses over the
years.
Trump’s
golf courses, for example, have reported losses of $315.6m since 2000.
“Someone really needs to explain to him that in golf, you want a low
score. In golf business, you really don’t want to finish 315 million
under par,” Colbert joked.
On
top of the business losses, the Times also found that Trump is
personally responsible for loans and other debt totaling $421m. “To put
that in layman’s terms – I can’t,” said Colbert. “It’s 421 million
dollars.”
“Normally you don’t find someone who
owes that kind of cash in the Oval Office,” he added. “You find them
washed up on the banks of a river. And Trump only looks like he washed
up on the banks of a river.”
Trump’s golf courses, for example, have reported losses of $315.6m since 2000. “Someone really needs to explain to him that in Trevor Noah
On the Daily Show, Trevor Noah
was especially shocked by Trump’s $70,000 “business expense” deduction
for his hair on The Apprentice. “Now it looks like two crimes have been
committed here: one is Trump’s tax evasion, and two is whoever swindled
Trump into paying $70,000 for what they did to him.”
In all seriousness, Noah added, “the
worst part of this story for Donald Trump isn’t that he got out of
paying taxes. Because I mean, let’s be honest, lots of billionaires do
that. Billionaires paying their fair share of taxes is like someone
going to a pumpkin patch and not Instagramming it – it doesn’t happen.
“But
what this story exposes isn’t just that Trump is bad at paying taxes.
It’s that he’s even worse at business.” The New York Times investigation
laid bare Trump’s flailing business empire, in which his core
operations – golf courses and name-brand hotels – reported millions or
tens of millions in losses year after year. In 2018 alone, Trump
businesses reported $47.4m in losses. And Trump personally owes a debt
of $421m – one that could come due during his second term in office if
he’s re-elected.
“Can
I just say, if you decided to lend $420m to Donald Trump, that’s on
you,” Noah said. “I hope he doesn’t pay you back, because you are the
one person on earth worse with money than he is.”
In
sum, reading the New York Times report, and learning the size and scope
of Trump’s business debts, means “everything makes so much sense now,”
Noah concluded. “This tax story is the Rosetta Stone that helps us
figure everything out. Trump doesn’t want to be president – he just
really needs that Secret Service protection. Shit, if I had $421m in
loans coming due, I’d also be trying to cancel the election.”
Seth Meyers
“So Trump paid virtually nothing in taxes in 2016 and 2017,” said Seth Meyers
on Late Night, which is one thing if you’re “just a New York real
estate grifter” but “it’s especially brazen to do it while you’re a
sitting president.
“That means he was in the
Oval Office on the phone with his accountant saying, ‘What? ‘Eight
hundred ninety bucks seems like a lot. Can we get it down to
seven-fifty?’”
Allegations of Trump’s illegal
financial dealings is old news, Meyers continued – Trump’s former
personal lawyer Michael Cohen alleged Trump illegally deflated the value
of his New York real estate holdings, and Trump is currently under
investigation by the Manhattan district attorney and New York’s state
attorney general. “But to my mind, what’s legal is just as much of a
scandal here,” Meyers said. “Trump took advantage of a labyrinthine tax
system designed to protect his wealth and shield him from consequences.
“In
fact, he and his allies have long argued that rather than be ashamed of
this behavior. He should be proud of it.” Meyers cut to clips in which
Trump bragged about avoiding taxes, claiming the loopholes made him
“smart”.
“It doesn’t make you smart. It makes
you powerful,” Meyers corrected. “There are plenty of smart people who
pay their taxes in full every year because they don’t have the army of
accountants and vampire lawyers that rich people like Trump or companies
like Amazon have.
“If the IRS found out you
did what Trump is accused of,” Meyers added, “your response would be,”
to quote Trump’s press conference from Sunday, “Oh, shit.”
The NSW independent planning commission says Lock the Gate’s evidence arrived too late to meet its strict approval timeframe.
Lock
the Gate tried to submit fresh evidence to authorities considering the
Narrabri coal seam gas development about the cumulative effects of
multiple mining projects on groundwater in the region.
Evidence
suggesting the proposed Narrabri coal seam gas development could have a
greater impact on groundwater than previously believed has not been
considered by authorities due to a strict approval timeframe imposed by
the New South Wales government, activists say.
The
state’s independent planning commission is due to announce on Wednesday
its decision on the controversial gas project in northern NSW following
a 16-week assessment period in which opponents have raised concerns
about implied political pressure on the commission to approve the
development.
It included the prime minister, Scott Morrison, saying developments such as Narrabri needed to be accelerated to help drive a “gas-fired recovery” from the coronavirus recession.
Lock
the Gate, an environment group opposed to coal and coal seam gas
projects, tried to submit fresh evidence about what it said was the
cumulative effects of multiple mining projects on groundwater in the
region on 14 September, a little over two weeks before a decision was
due.
The
commission replied that it would not consider the evidence as it had to
meet a state-government imposed deadline to make a decision about the
project by 30 September, and there had been more than eight weeks in
which submissions could be made.
Georgina
Woods, Lock the Gate’s NSW coordinator, said recent changes introduced
by the state planning minister, Rob Stokes, had imposed new time limits
on the commission in making assessments. She said it had a “chilling
effect” on the commission’s independence.
“I’m
quite concerned … There’s all these political players running around
confidently declaring that the project is going to be approved. That’s
not an atmosphere that instils trust and confidence in the public that
the process is objective,” she told Guardian Australia.
Woods
said Lock the Gate’s new evidence showed the project proponent, oil and
gas company Santos, had used outdated models in assessing how its
project and nearby resources developments would affect groundwater
levels.
She said the company relied on models
previously used in assessing Whitehaven’s Narrabri underground coal
mine, but that Whitehaven had subsequently updated its data when planning
an extension. Using the latest models showed the cumulative impact of
the developments would be “far greater” than Santos or the NSW planning
department contended.
“This is not last-minute
stuff. This is an impact assessment that Whitehaven submitted last year.
It’s not like Santos and the department didn’t have time to include
this in their impact assessment,” Woods said.
Both
Santos and Stokes’ office declined to comment. A spokesperson for the
commission referred to a written response to Lock the Gate by the
commissioner, Dianne Leeson, on 18 September, in which she said the
minister’s direction about timing was binding on the commission.
She
said it was initially given 12 weeks, extended to 16 weeks after Santos
made a late submission and additional information was sought from the
department. It meant there had been more than eight weeks in which
submissions could be lodged.
She said Lock the
Gate had reiterated the new evidence it provided should not be
considered submissions, making it unclear how the correspondence should
be treated, and the act made clear the commission was not required to
consider communication from the public outside the stipulated time.
The
Narrabri gas project would involve up to 850 coal seam gas wells being
drilled on 1,000 hectares of a 95,000 hectare site that includes Pilliga
forest and nearby grazing land. Santos says it could provide up to 200
terajoules of gas a day for domestic use for 20 years, equivalent to 50%
of NSW demand.
The commission heard evidence
from hundreds of people and groups, most of them opposed. Objections
included that it would damage the local environment and groundwater and
lead to substantial greenhouse gas emissions at odds with Australia’s
commitment to the Paris climate agreement.
But the project has strong government backing including the formal support of the NSW Coalition. The prime minister, Scott Morrison, listed it as one of 15 projects of national significance,
promising an accelerated assessment under federal environment laws, and
the energy and emissions reduction minister, Angus Taylor, has
suggested it will reduce energy costs for consumers. This has been contested.
Stokes introduced changes
to how the commission operates, including new timeframes in which
decisions needed to be made, earlier this year. It followed a review in response to a backlash from mining groups to recent decisions, including the rejection of a coalmine in the NSW Bylong Valley.
Lock the Gate said the commission had accepted new information after submission deadlines on other proposals, including Bylong.
TAFE curriculums are "not fit for purpose for a modern economy", according to the CEO of TAFE Directors Australia.(ABC News: Jerry Rickard)
The head of the industry body that represents the nation's TAFEs has described the system as "broken" and says serious reform is needed.
Key points:
Industry, teachers and advocates say many of Australia's TAFEs are showing the impacts of decade-long under-funding
They say the $1 billion JobTrainer program is not enough to undo years of damage
Industries like metal fabrication say course content is two decades old and apprentices say equipment is past its use-by-date
TAFE Directors Australia chief executive Craig Robertson believes curriculums around the country, called National Training Packages, have created too much red tape for teachers and made it impossible to respond to local needs.
The packages are supposed to be written in consultation with industry but critics say they are being hampered by bureaucracy and industry is being locked out.
"It has become very centralised," Mr Robertson said.
"It is not fit for purpose for a modern economy, and they're going to be even less fit for purpose with the economic changes coming out of COVID," he said.
His concerns are being played out in areas like welding.
Curriculum behind the times
Geoff Crittenden says the welding curriculum is very out of date.(ABC News: Jerry Rickard)
Geoff Crittenden, chief executive of industry group Weld Australia, said the current welding curriculum was written in 1998 and had changed little since.
Apprentices, for example, were still required to spend 250 hours learning oxy acetylene welding, a technique barely used in industry anymore.
"I look at the equipment and it's a bit like stepping into a museum," Mr Crittenden said.
"It's easier to just use the same material time and time again than start afresh."
Mr Crittenden said he would like to see the curriculum updated to equip apprentices for the future with content such as robotics and big data.
This would also help Australian firms better compete for international manufacturing contracts.
"Internationally our rugby teams are better than our welding teams," he said.
Jason Elias says it takes 12 months to get his welding apprentices "up to scratch".(ABC News: Jerry Rickard)
His concerns are echoed by employers like Jason Elias, who runs a Sydney specialty welding business.
A former TAFE teacher himself, Mr Elias said he has been watching the quality of TAFE facilities and apprentices decline over the past decade.
"We have to now set up in-house training facilities and teach them the additional requirements needed," Mr Elias said.
"It would take us another 12 months minimum to get them up to scratch."
He estimated he will need at least 40 new welders over the coming decades and nationwide it is estimated Australia will need at least 400 more just for defence contracts in the next decade.
"The government is spending on all these projects: infrastructure, defence — welding is a key focus," Mr Elias said.
The system, funding to blame
Underfunding is taking its toll on TAFE, says the president of the Australian Education Union.(ABC News: Dan Cox)
Industry experts agree it is not the students' fault, nor is it teachers or even individual TAFEs.
It is a question of funding.
Nationally, funding for the entire vocational training sector has declined from highs of $7.6 billion in 2012 to $6.1 billion in 2019.
While part of those figures reflect some rorting of the former VET-FEE-HELP scheme, Australian Education Union president Correna Haythorpe said chronic underfunding had taken its toll.
"There's no doubt that with funding cuts, that there is a direct impact on the courses that can be provided in terms of meeting industry needs," she said.
The announcement of the Federal Government's JobTrainer program sounds like a massive injection — $1 billion — split between the states and Commonwealth.
But that is for the whole public and private training sector and many fear that will not undo years of underfunding at TAFE.
"The announcement of JobTrainer has been particularly disappointing," Ms Haythorpe said.
Mr Robertson said when divided up, the new money equated to less than $3,000 for each student, which is barely enough for one basic TAFE subject.
It will not be adequate to replace the majority of the 140,000 four-year apprenticeships lost in recent years.
"What we've really got to be able to make sure that we can do is help the person who wants a longer course, to really prepare them for their career," he said.
Michaelia Cash says the Government is trying to simplify the training system.(ABC News: Evelyn Manfield)
In a statement, Skills Minister Michaelia Cash said a lack of transparency from the states and private providers in how training funding had been used in the past was "a serious concern".
She said the Government was focused on simplifying training which was "currently marred by inconsistencies and incoherence, with little accountability for outcomes".
Senator Cash said the Federal Government's share of training funding had been increasing over time.
Under JobTrainer the states can only access funds if they sign up to a new reform agreement and funding will only go to accredited courses in areas of need.
"The exact number of places will depend on the mix of training, which is subject to agreement with the States and Territories," Senator Cash said.
Back to basics
Graeme Elphinstone says apprentices "battle to read and write".(ABC News: Alison Branley)
Graeme Elphinstone has spent 40 years hiring apprentices at his trucking and weighing systems business in Tasmaniaand said his issue with skills training is that potential apprentices no longer arrive with even the basics.
"They battle to read and write when they come to us, let alone do maths," he said.
"We have to do a lot more training in-house to get apprentices to where we want them."
He is not alone. Figures show employer satisfaction with training has fallen nearly 10 per cent in the past decade.
"Just get the basics right," Mr Elphinstone said.
"If we have to teach them how to read and write before we can get them doing the trade that just makes our job so hard."
TAFE Directors Australia agree literacy and numeracy is a problem, but said it is a problem across the entire workforce.
The Federal Government has started a new literacy program for apprentices.(ABC News: Alison Branley)
And while it is a schooling issue, Mr Robertson said TAFEs have a role to play.
"We don't really fund that or put that into training package requirements and nor is it measured, nor is it regulated," he said.
The Federal Government says it started a new literacy program for apprentices, which began in May.
Mr Elphinstone said he also receives fewer visits from TAFE staff, which he said means they do not stay as up to date with industry trends.
And then there is the equipment.
Braiden Garbowski has just finished a four-year apprenticeship with the manufacturer and said he learned most of his skills on the job.
The high-end CNC lathe he uses is a far cry from the one he trained on at TAFE.
"It [the TAFE machine] is probably from the seventies, I'd say," he said.
In a statement, TasTAFE chief executive Jenny Dodd said metals facilities would be considered as part of the suite of areas for upgrade.
Fears of a return to the bad old days
The Productivity Commission has handed down an interim report looking at Australia's skills sector.
But already many are concerned it is being used to pave the way to a return to marketisation of Australia's training industry.
Between 2013 and 2017, more than $5 billion of taxpayer money went to the federal training loan scheme called VET-FEE-HELP after it was opened up to private providers.
It saw many students sold overpriced diploma-level courses with the lure of incentives like free laptops.
But many courses were not up to scratch and vulnerable students were saddled with HECS-style government debts that had to be forgiven by the Australian Tax Office.
Lines from the Productivity Commission's interim report such as: "Failures were a symptom of poor policy design and implementation, rather than a failure in the concept," have raised the ire of industry experts.
"We are gravely concerned," Ms Haythorpe said.
"It certainly highlights a focus towards increased contestability of funding, more private provision of vocational education, increased student loans and voucher system. This is not the way to go."
Her concerns are echoed by TAFE Directors who maintain they do not oppose private training, but are concerned that opening up the market too much is fraught.
"It hasn't really sought to learn the lessons from what happened with the VET-FEE-HELP and other sort of open market programs," Mr Robertson said.
Senator Cash said they had been trying to restore confidence in the sector since then and had re-credited $1.5 billion in government loans for dodgy courses to students.
She said they had an $18 million plan to improve regulation in the training sector that included a new National Skills Commission that was looking at the price of training courses, and established the National Careers Institute along with pilot Skills Organisations.
"All governments will work in partnership to ensure effective controls are in place," she said.
Trump 'paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017' – video report
Donald Trump, a self-proclaimed billionaire, paid only $750 in
federal income taxes in the year he was elected US president, according
to a stunning New York Times investigation that could shake up the presidential election.
“Trump taxes show chronic losses and years of tax avoidance,” was the
banner headline on the paper’s website on Sunday. The president’s tax
returns have long been the holy grail of American political reporting.
The president “paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the
presidency”, the paper reported, adding that “in his first year in the
White House, he paid another $750.
“He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years –
largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.”
In all, the paper said, Trump paid no federal income taxes in 11 of
18 years its reporters examined. Many of his businesses, including his
golf courses, report significant financial losses – which have helped
him to lower his taxes.
The Times also said the documents it had obtained “comprise
information that Mr Trump has disclosed to the IRS, not the findings of
an independent financial examination. They report that Mr Trump owns
hundreds of millions of dollars in valuable assets, but they do not
reveal his true wealth. Nor do they reveal any previously unreported
connections to Russia.”
The paper said it would not publish the documents, in order to protect its source.
'Fake news': Trump denies tax claims from New York Times – video
At a White House press briefing on Sunday, Trump made wild
allegations about plots against him and about Biden, who he will debate
for the first time on Tuesday. Eventually, he dismissed the Times report
as “totally fake news”.
He said: “We went through the same stories, you could have asked me
the same questions four years ago, I had to litigate this and talk about
it.
“Totally fake news, no. Actually I paid tax. And you’ll see that as
soon as my tax returns – it’s under audit, they’ve been under audit for a
long time. The [Internal Revenue Service] does not treat me well … they
treat me very badly. You have people in the IRS – they treat me very
badly.”
The president added: “The New York Times tried it, the same thing,
they want to create a little bit of a story. They’re doing anything they
can. That’s the least of it. The stories that I read are so fake,
they’re so phony.”
Pressed on why a billionaire only paid a few hundred dollars in the
year he won the presidency, Trump insisted: “First of all I paid a lot,
and I paid a lot of state income taxes too. The New York state charges a
lot and I paid a lot of money in state. It’ll all be revealed. It’s
going to come out but after the audit.”
The revelations threaten to damage Trump’s repeated claim to
be a successful businessman and therefore a capable steward of the US
economy.
The Times also said he has used “questionable measures” to reduce his
tax bill. He faced a possible hit of “more than $100m” if he lost “a
decade-long audit battle with the IRS over the legitimacy of a $72.9m
tax refund that he claimed, and received, after declaring huge losses”.
It promised more stories in the coming weeks, adding: “The tax
returns that Mr Trump has long fought to keep private tell a story
fundamentally different from the one he has sold to the American
public.”
Trump
will face Joe Biden at the polls on 3 November. He has long resisted
demands by political opponents and the media to release decades of tax
information. He is the first president since the 1970s to keep his tax
returns concealed.
“Even while declaring losses, he has managed to enjoy a lavish
lifestyle by taking tax deductions on what most people would consider
personal expenses, including residences, aircraft and $70,000 in
hairstyling for television,” the Times reported on Sunday.
“Ivanka Trump, while working as an employee of the Trump
Organization, appears to have received ‘consulting fees’ that also
helped reduce the family’s tax bill.”
The paper added: “Over the past two decades, Mr Trump has paid about
$400m less in combined federal income taxes than a very wealthy person
who paid the average for that group each year.”
Alan Garten, a lawyer for the Trump Organization, told the Times that “most, if not all, of the facts appear to be inaccurate”.
He said: “Over the past decade, President Trump has paid tens of
millions of dollars in personal taxes to the federal government,
including paying millions in personal taxes since announcing his
candidacy in 2015.”
The newspaper pointed out that “personal taxes” appeared to cover other federal taxes, including social security and Medicare.
The report prompted instant criticism. Ryan Thomas, a spokesperson
for the progressive advocacy organisation Stand Up America, said: “Four
years ago, Donald Trump
broke decades of precedent when he refused to release his tax returns
to the public. At each turn since, he’s attempted to shield his
financial records from the public – even as congressional and criminal
investigators look into how he’s profited off the presidency and his
decades of fraudulent tax schemes.
“We’ve demanded Trump’s tax returns for years because the American
people deserve to know what he’s paying – and the answer appears to be very
little. A man who uses dubious tax schemes to avoid paying taxes or
lies to the public about his finances has no place in the Oval Office.
“This is just one more reason why we must vote to evict him.”
• The headline on this article was
amended on 28 September 2020 to remove a suggestion that the New York
Times had published the actual tax returns.
Americans paid for Trump’s $73m tax refund – and he’s laughing all the way to the bank.
‘Trump benefited from a system that rewards those who can afford the most creative accountants.’
Last modified on Tue 29 Sep 2020 01.17 AEST
Well, now we know why Donald Trump didn’t want the public to see his tax returns. A New York Times investigation
looking at years of previously undisclosed documents found that Trump
used countless maneuvers to avoid having to pay federal income tax. He
ended up paying $750 total in 2016 despite hundreds of millions of
dollars in income from The Apprentice and his various companies and
licensing arrangements. Many years he paid nothing at all, and even
received an income tax refund of $72.9m, which included millions in
interest, straight from the federal treasury to Trump’s pocket.
The
New York Times paints a picture of an elaborate shell game in which
losses from some of his companies are used to wipe out tax liabilities
elsewhere. It is not always clear how much of his “losses” are real
losses rather than creative accounting, but the Times suggests that
Trump may be both living large on hundreds of millions in annual income
and overseeing distressed and unprofitable businesses.
We had known some of this already. Trump had admitted publicly
that he used a $916m loss reported on his 1995 tax return to avoid
paying any federal income tax for years. Trump’s former attorney Michael
Cohen testified last year that he remembered Trump “showing him a huge
check from the US Treasury some years earlier” and commenting “that he
could not believe how stupid the government was for giving someone like
him that much money back”. But now we have stark confirmation of the
facts: Trump is a billionaire who doesn’t pay his taxes, leaving the
financial responsibility for funding the government to ordinary working
people. It’s a national disgrace.
Trump
will, of course, spin all of this as simply sound business practice. He
has previously said that tax avoidance makes him “smart”, and that he
is simply taking advantage of perfectly legal and legitimate loopholes.
Indeed, some Americans might be inclined to see it the same way.
Everyone gets to pay as little in tax as they can get away with under
the law, if Trump has found a way to pay nothing, that’s a problem with
the system rather than with him.
There are a few reasons why we shouldn’t dismiss it like this, though.
First,
the New York Times not only showed that Trump didn’t pay taxes, but it
also revealed that some of the methods he used may have bordered on the
criminal. The usual distinction made between “tax avoidance” (legal) and
“tax evasion” (illegal) is murky in Trump’s case, and the Times reports
that the IRS has been looking into his questionable refund and the New
York attorney general has been investigating whether he inflated land
appraisals to increase his deductions. In his returns, there are
allegedly questionable “consulting” fees that seem to have been paid to
his children and then claimed as business expenses, thus reducing his
liability. Much of Trump’s lavish lifestyle is treated as a business
expense. This is easy to claim, since much of his “business” consists of
“being Donald Trump”. So he wrote off $70,000 of hairstyling as a
business expense. If he is selling a brand, and the brand is “hedonistic
self-indulgence”, then, as the Times put it, “everything that feeds the
image … can be written off.”
A particularly
egregious instance of bending the law stands out. In 1996, Trump bought a
50,000 sq ft historic mansion in Westchester county, which is
surrounded by nature preserves. Trump threatened to develop the property
and the people in surrounding towns objected, so instead he agreed not
to develop it in exchange for a “$21.1m charitable tax deduction” for
land preservation. Trump then classified the mansion as an investment
rather than a residence so that he could reduce his property taxes, even
though it appears the Trump family did indeed live in it.
So
it may not just be that Trump is a businessman with unusually shrewd
accountants. He might be exactly what he looks like: a tax cheat. The
New York Times reports that most similarly wealthy people pay far more
than Trump in taxes. Hell, Ipay far more than Trump in taxes,
and I edit a tiny print magazine. This could be more a case of fraud
than cleverness, even if the law has not yet caught up with Trump.
It’s
true that Trump benefited from a system that rewards those who can
afford the most creative accountants. We obviously won’t fix the problem
by encouraging Donald Trump to feel ashamed of himself, or even by
voting him out of office. But Trump is not a mere passive beneficiary of
a broken set of rules. The billionaires don’t just exploit the
loopholes. They also make them
through pushing for ever-expanding exemptions from the tax burden they
would otherwise pay. In Trump’s case, it is true in the most literal
sense that he made the rules he benefits from. Trump’s major legislative
initiative was a whole new tax cut tilted toward giving wealthy people
like himself even more favorable treatment.
It’s one thing to pay only your legal minimum but understand that the
system is unfair. It’s quite another to be actively trying to make that
system more grotesquely unequal.
Americans
should be disgusted that Trump paid sums ranging from $750 to nothing in
federal income taxes. Both his own behavior and the system that made it
possible are outrageous. After all, when billionaires don’t pay their
taxes, the rest of us have to cover the gaps. When you look at your own
tax bill, understand that it could be lower if super-wealthy people like
Trump weren’t trying to shift the burden onto everyone else. You paid
for Trump’s $73m tax refund and he’s laughing all the way to the bank.
The
Times investigation shows us both a system that is corrupted and the
way the president has made every sketchy maneuver possible to avoid
contributing to the public good. Anyone who believes the rich should pay
their fair share should realize that the situation will only grow worse
so long as Trump holds power.
• Nathan Robinson is the editor of Current Affairs and a Guardian US columnist
The
US president has been exposed as a businessman whose ventures lost so
much money he ended up paying less tax to the government than his own
working-class supporters.
Donald Trump in the Rose Garden of the White House, alongside his supreme court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett.
Last modified on Tue 29 Sep 2020 04.59 AEST
The
emperor’s new clothes is a cautionary tale that politicians know well. A
vain ruler who cannot resist buying new garments is sold an imaginary
new suit. Out on a stroll in this “magical” attire, he is revealed to be
naked by a little boy. Hans Christian Andersen’s exercise in groupthink
has the emperor, despite the obvious,
continuing to claim that he is garbed in finery. It is a subversive
message; that power can bend the truth. Donald Trump thinks himself such
a ruler.
According to the New York Times,
President Trump paid minuscule amounts of federal income tax – $750 in
2016 and 2017, and nothing in 10 of the previous 15 years. That’s
because he had a reverse Midas touch with business. Rather than the
self-made-billionaire image honed by The Apprentice, Mr Trump excelled
at losing, not making, money. Mr Trump’s golf courses have lost $315m
since 2000. This time it was the Old Grey Lady, not a child, who showed how Mr Trump was, figuratively, naked.
The president’s reaction was to call the story “totally fake news”.
He hopes this language resonates with his base and causes them to
identify with him rather than listen to the facts. Mr Trump built a
coalition by appealing more to conspiracy theory than to partisanship;
and his strategy has been to supply his supporters with conspiracy
theories to fight what they see as a conspiracy against them. He lies
outrageously and often. His supporters may even appreciate his deceits.
Many think all politicians are liars and consider those outraged by Mr
Trump’s falsehoods to be hypocrites.
But the
New York Times story carries a sting in its long tail. Should Mr Trump
win, he is liable for $300m in loans that will come due within four
years. “His lenders could be placed,” the paper notes dryly, “in the
unprecedented position of weighing whether to foreclose on a sitting
president.” Being in hock to foreign
entities would surely pose a major security risk. As the story is
unfolding, its impact on the most important election in modern US
history cannot be easily judged. The news arrived on the eve of the
first presidential debate between the Democrats’ Joe Biden and Mr Trump.
Mr Biden’s campaign was quick to cast the president as a leader who
thought taxes were just for the little people, pointing out that teachers, nurses and firefighters all paid a lot more to the government than Mr Trump does.
America seems broken by Covid-19 after four years of Mr Trump. Almost 30 million are claiming unemployment insurance. Hunger is growing. Two-thirds of households hit by coronavirus face financial hardship.
Decades of worshipping greed has destabilised society. The lack of
political pressure to compel Congress to extend the $600 per week
additional jobless benefit when it expired in July was shocking –
especially considering the Republican rush to push through Judge Amy
Coney Barrett’s supreme court confirmation hearings. Inequality
is a US national emergency. It ought to be addressed by increased taxes
on the wealthy. Mr Trump won in 2016 by making promises to voters he
was not going to keep. He cheated
his working-class supporters, suggesting that many of their fears
cannot be of concern. Mr Trump probably believed his own story. One
hopes for the US’s sake that come November fewer people will trust him
again.
Time lapse shows Glass Fire burning through Napa Valley, forcing the evacuation of patients and workers from a hospital and residents from hundreds of homes.
A major wildfire in northern California is threatening to destroy homes and vineyards as it pushes towards the state's famed wine-growing valley.
Key points:
Named the Glass Fire, it has so far scorched 800 hectares of land
The fire is threatening the wine region of the Napa Valley
A hospital has been evacuated along with another 600 homes
Fire crews have scrambled to try and contain the fire which started on Sunday morning (local time), about 120 kilometres north of San Francisco.
Strong winds pushed the wildfire — named the Glass Fire — across more than 800 hectares of land in the Napa Valley, one of California's major wine regions.
The blaze began midway through the traditional grape-harvesting period in the valley.
The area's 475 wineries account for just 4 per cent of the state's total annual grape harvest but half of the retail value of all California wines sold, according to the Napa Valley Vintners trade group.
The fire was within 2 kilometres of the Adventist Health St. Helena Hospital, which had to evacuate all 55 patients.
Hospital spokeswoman Linda Williams said all patients were safely evacuated by midday on Sunday.
"We had ambulances lined up from all over the Bay area," she said.
The Glass Fire in California has destroyed building's near one of the state's most popular wine regions.(Jose Carlos Fajardo: Bay Area News Group via AP)
Around 600 homes were also evacuated on Sunday, with authorities issuing warnings to another 1,400 residents to be ready to leave at a moment's notice.
CalFire, the state's fire protection department, said a fire weather watch would start on Monday across most of Southern California with hot, gusty winds and low humidity predicted.
Draft of Chapter 32, Battlestar Galactica, is available for fact checking.
Chapters 30 and 31 had to be revised a bit after – to my surprise –
Jule Charney responded to my request re fact-checking. At least it
seemed to be him – but maybe it was all a dream.
You can sign up for our monthly global temperature updates here.
Amy Coney Barrett, in the Rose Garden of the White House.
Photograph: Olivier Douliery/AFP/Getty Images
Donald Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett
to the supreme court, to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has drawn
attention to a secretive Catholic “covenant community” called People of
Praise that counts Barrett as a member and faces claims of adhering to a
“highly authoritarian” structure.
The 48-year-old appellate court judge has said she is a “faithful
Catholic” but that her religious beliefs would not “bear in the
discharge of my duties as a judge”.
At the same time, the Louisiana native and Notre Dame Law graduate, a
favorite among Trump’s evangelical Christian base, has said legal
careers ought not to be seen as means of gaining satisfaction, prestige
or money, but rather “as a means to the end of serving God”.
Interviews with experts who have studied charismatic Christian groups
such as People of Praise, and with former members of the group, plus a
review of the group’s own literature, reveal an organization that
appears to dominate some members’ everyday lives, in which so-called
“heads” – or spiritual advisers – make big life decisions, and in which
members are expected to financially support one another.
Married
women – such as Barrett – count their husbands as their “heads” and all
members are expected to donate 5% of their income to the organization.
Some conservative and progressive activists have said any discussion
of Barrett’s faith is inappropriate in the context of a Senate
confirmation to assess her judicial qualifications, and potentially
reflects anti-Catholic bigotry.
Other Catholic writers have said it is fair to scrutinize People of Praise because the group falls far outside mainstream Catholicism.
Barrett has not publicly discussed her affiliation but her connection
was reported in multiple media accounts at the time of her confirmation
to an appellate court in 2017.
Her picture appears in a May 2006 edition of People of Praise’s
magazine, which documents her participation in a Leaders’ Conference for
Women. Her father and her husband, Jesse Barrett, are also known
members.
The group emerged out of the Catholic charismatic movement of
the late 1960s, which blended Catholicism and Protestant Pentecostalism
– Catholics and Protestants are both members – and adopted practices
like speaking in tongues. The group’s literature shows communal living
is also encouraged, at least among unmarried members, as is the sharing
of finances between households.
A July 2007 “our money our selves” edition of People of Praise’s Vine
& Branch magazine included an article about a 17-member group of
women described as “single for the Lord” and living together in South
Bend, Indiana. The women shared a “sisterhood budget”, which involved
them pooling their paychecks while a “head of the sisterhood”
determined, with the sisters’ input, how the money was spent.
“If
one of us has a need, we’ll pay for it,” one woman named Debbie was
quoted as saying. “But we also work hard to distinguish between our
needs and our wants.”
The “sisterhood” is described as living “simply, frugally, and
generously”, with about $36 put aside per week per person for food and
dry goods and $10 for pocket money to buy “Slurpees and movie tickets”.
They buy clothes at thrift stores and garage sales and 10% of their
income is directed to People of Praise.
The article quotes a head sister named Nano as saying: “If each of us
had her own money, it would change everything. Just as we would have
our own shelf in the refrigerator, so we would probably partition off
other parts of our lives and be more guarded in certain areas. Having
money in common moves you to put everything in common.”
"Whether People of Praise rises to the level of cult, I am not in a position to make that judgment."
Adrian Reimers, a former member turned critic of the group, described
in a book available online called Not Reliable Guides his “grave
concern” about how the life of People of Praise members were “not his or
her own” and how “all one’s decisions and dealings become the concern
of one’s head, and in turn potentially become known to the leadership”.
Reached by the Guardian, Reimers said he did not want to discuss the matter further.
Writing for Politico, Massimo Faggioli, a historian and theologian at
Villanova University, said there were “tensions” between serving as a
supreme court justice, one of the final interpreters of the US
constitution, and swearing an oath to an organization he said “lacks
transparency and visible structures of authority that are accountable to
their members, to the Roman Catholic church, and to the wider public”.
“A lot of what goes on in People of Praise is not that different than
what goes on in a lot of rightwing or conservative Catholic circles,”
said Heidi Schlumpf, executive editor for National Catholic Reporter,
which reports on the church.
'The dogma lives loudly in you': Democratic senator on Amy Coney Barrett – video
“Whether
People of Praise rises to the level of cult, I am not in a position to
make that judgment. But there is a level of secrecy that was concerning,
and there was a level of reports by people who left the organization of
authoritarianism that [is] concerning as well.”
‘Neither an oath nor a vow’
People of Praise is headed by an all-male board of governors described as its “highest authority”.
On its website, the group, which was founded in South Bend in 1971
and has 1,700 members, describes itself as a community that “shares our
lives together” and “support each other financially and materially and
spiritually”.
“Our covenant is neither an oath nor a vow, but it is an important
personal commitment,” the website says. “We teach that People of Praise
members should always follow their consciences, as formed by the light
of reason, and by the experience and the teachings of their churches.”
A spokesman did not immediately respond to requests for comment about
allegations of authoritarian structure or why the group has been
described as a cult by some former followers. The spokesman directed the
Guardian to the website and said he was being inundated with media requests from all over the world.
Financial records previously submitted to Congress show Barrett
served as a trustee for the Trinity School at Greenlawn, a private
Catholic school affiliated with People of Praise, from 2015 to 2017. A
parent handbook describes the school’s commitment to the establishment
of “Christian relationships” that adhere to “scripture and Christian
tradition”.
“We understand marriage to be a legal and committed relationship
between a man and a woman and believe that the only proper place for
sexual activity is within these bounds of conjugal love,” the handbook
says, emphasizing that any sex outside of marriage – whether gay or
straight – is not in keeping with “God’s plan for human sexuality”.
Donald Trump at a prayer meeting in the White House in August. Photograph: Getty Images
Students
who experience same-sex attraction, the handbook says, ought not to
“prematurely interpret any emotional experience as identity-defining”.
“We believe that such self-identification at a young age can lead to
students being labeled based solely upon sexuality, generate
distraction, create confusion, and prevent students from experiencing
true freedom within the culture of the school,” the handbook says.
While the school’s objection to gay marriage and attraction is in
line with mainstream Catholic teaching, the handbook also actively
discourages teenage students from forming “exclusive relationships”, and
asks them not to “be exclusive or give evidence of their dating
relationships while at school”.
While the handbook does not describe its objection to such
relationships, one expert who asked not to be named, because they had
already received online abuse for speaking critically about People of
Praise, said it revealed the importance the group put on the concept of
community, rather than individual relationships.
“It’s typical of these charismatic communities that friendship is
seen as a danger to the community,” the person said. “That’s normal.”
Teachers who apply for jobs at any schools affiliated with People of
Praise are told, according to an online application, that they need to
adhere to a “basic code of Christian conduct”.
‘A grave violation of religious freedom’
Democrats will likely be most concerned about Barrett’s views on
abortion and the Affordable Care Act, the Obama-era law that extended
health insurance to millions of Americans.
In 2012, as a professor at Notre Dame, Barrett signed a letter
attacking a provision of the ACA that forced insurance companies to
offer coverage for contraception, a facet of the law later modified for
religious institutions. The adjustment forced insurance companies – not
employers – to alert employees to contraception and abortion drugs that
were available under the insurance plan.
The letter Barrett signed said: “The simple fact is that the Obama
administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are
employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides
abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization. This is a
grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.”
If she is confirmed before the November election, one of Barrett’s
first cases could determine the fate of the Affordable Care Act.
Got a tip? Email stephanie.kirchgaessner@theguardian.com
