"Japan's Abe Is the World's Best Leader"

[matsuki]

I know some will think I'm overreacting, but my personal opinion, which remains essentially unchanged from many month ago, is that this guy is really dangerous.

But there are still a few hanabi taikai and AKB is doing a live show this weekend! Who cares about politics?

[dimwit]

its no more than a field of alpine flowers inside those protesters' brains.

Thereafter in Manchuria a number of violent incidents involving Chinese or Soviet forces ensued, and a number of Japanese lost not only their possessions but their lives. Because it had been disarmed, the Japanese military was unable to protect the Japanese residents.

　She said that a Soviet officer attempted to rape her. After fiercely resisting, she took refuge by hiding in a closet. He said her mother also fought fiercely to protect her daughter. For the mother’s part, her actions were justified self-defense, or expressed another way, the exercise of collective self-defense on an individual level.

To repeat, the cause of the violent incidents and pillaging by the Soviet military was the disarming of the Japanese military due to Japan’s defeat in the war.

That being the case, I marvel at the thought processes which would cause her to espouse Article 9 of the Constitution and be opposed to the proposed security related bills intended to strengthen the ability of the country to defend itself.

http://ameblo.jp/workingkent/entry-12067126562.html

So the precis of Kunt's argument is that Japanese Imperial Army was in the business of protecting the lives of Japanese civilians. A job they did so will by arresting any civilian who opposed them, assassinating civilian leaders who stood up to them, and forcing Japanese civilians to commit suicide. The Army treated it's male citzenry as cannon fodder and its women as breeding livestock.

Sorry Kunt, but the Japanese military have never been interested in protecting the lives of Japanese people whom they held in contempt, they were merely interested holding onto power and control and if you understand this point, much of the insanity and stupidity of the Japanese military leadership in WWII becomes comprehensible.

But now, you might be tempted to say that things are different and the JSDF would never try to take over the government, except for when they did. Oh, that and the fact that their leadership in so inherently trustworthy.

No, I think the Japanese public has a lot better understanding of the military than Kunt does.

[matsuki]

No, I think the Japanese public has a lot better understanding of the military than Kunt does.

But but but that goes against the whole senpai/kohai vertical society

[Takechanpoo]

organizers put the crowd at 120,000 - people of all ages braved occasional rain to join the rally

barefacedly lies

plt1508310051-p1.jpg

its at least 3600, at best 32,000 ones

[kurogane]

...........some will think I'm overreacting, but my personal opinion.......is that this guy is really dangerous.

Yes to both of those. Moreso to the latter, btw. My fear is that he is actually sincere and courageous enough in his outrageous beliefs that he is willing to fall on his sword in order to fulfill his grandfilial duties and those to his beloved but misled and beguiled Emperor God; he seems as delusional and fanatic as the Ken Watanabe character in Last Samurai. I sense a serious attempt to enact an epochal shift regardless of the popular sentiment. Apparently his autobiography thingy is rather Mein Kampfy, especially as regards his feelings for his poor, victimised grandfather, the misunderstood saint that he was

I get your sentiments, but like Matuski said, there's Hanabi and AKB..........

[matsuki]

Apparently his autobiography thingy is rather Mein Kampfy, especially as regards his feelings for his poor, victimised grandfather, the misunderstood saint that he was

Is that all his endgame is...trying to rewrite a "comfort history" for the country and pointlessly rearm for status and to bolster the "comfort history?" Not like I can see actually going to war with North Korea or China.

[J.A.F.O]

...........some will think I'm overreacting, but my personal opinion.......is that this guy is really dangerous.

I think so as well. A buddy of mine who is into j-politics, basically said that in a speech he gave a nod to the old empire. I can't verify, so it's hearsay, but still kinda disconcerting.

[matsuki]

...........some will think I'm overreacting, but my personal opinion.......is that this guy is really dangerous.

I think so as well. A buddy of mine who is into j-politics, basically said that in a speech he gave a nod to the old empire. I can't verify, so it's hearsay, but still kinda disconcerting.

[Takechanpoo]

c.png

left: Abe
right: Xi Jinping

xi's one is just like recent j-girls one. its kawaii!
well...you western gaijin dudes even do not distinguish between skillfull kanji and unskillful one, though.

[Russell]

c.png

left: Abe
right: Xi Jinping

xi's one is just like recent j-girls one. its kawaii!
well...you western gaijin dudes even do not distinguish between skillfull kanji and unskillful one, though.

What's your point?

That Abe is better qualified to have become a Kanji-painting artist?!?

[Coligny]

left: Abe
right: Xi Jinping

xi's one is just like recent j-girls one. its kawaii!
well...you western gaijin dudes even do not distinguish between skillfull kanji and unskillful one, though.

Stop the circus rice nigger, us "western gaijin" use writing as a mean of communication not as a pathetic excuse for substandard artistic skills. It's not how pretentiously 'artfull' you draw the letters that matters. It's what you mean by the words they make.

Here, take this and go back wanking to sailor moon.

image.jpg

[Samurai_Jerk]

Japanese stocks just boomed 7.7% in the biggest rally since 2008

On Wednesday (Tuesday night in New York), Japan's benchmark Nikkei Index open up higher and rallied throughout the day, closing 7.7% higher, over 1,000 points in a continuation of Tuesday's global stock rally.

That's the biggest day for the Nikkei since late 2008.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe won another three years as leader of his political party on Tuesday, and committed to cutting corporate taxes by at least 3.3 percentage points next year.

[matsuki]

cutting corporate taxes by at least 3.3 percentage points next year

...and raising the consumption tax? Those poor, needy Japanese corporations need our help!!

[wagyl]

cutting corporate taxes by at least 3.3 percentage points next year

...and raising the consumption tax? Those poor, needy Japanese corporations need our help!!

I don't know how serious you are about this comment, but I will say that corporate tax has almost zero effect, good or bad, apart from being only one factor in the decision for a multinational to relocate or not. Otherwise, lower corporate taxes just means more money available for the other stakeholders, be they investor owners (through increased dividends -> higher income tax, usually at a higher marginal rate than corporate tax was anyway), or employees (through increased wages -> higher income tax, usually at a higher marginal rate than corporate tax was anyway), or customers (through lower prices). I leave the perception as to which of those stakeholders gets the lions share to your own individual politics, but any of those results in any proportion seems like a positive result to me.

[Salty]

cutting corporate taxes by at least 3.3 percentage points next year

...and raising the consumption tax? Those poor, needy Japanese corporations need our help!!

And yet the LDP gets voted back in every time.

[matsuki]

cutting corporate taxes by at least 3.3 percentage points next year

...and raising the consumption tax? Those poor, needy Japanese corporations need our help!!

I don't know how serious you are about this comment, but I will say that corporate tax has almost zero effect, good or bad, apart from being only one factor in the decision for a multinational to relocate or not. Otherwise, lower corporate taxes just means more money available for the other stakeholders, be they investor owners (through increased dividends -> higher income tax, usually at a higher marginal rate than corporate tax was anyway), or employees (through increased wages -> higher income tax, usually at a higher marginal rate than corporate tax was anyway), or customers (through lower prices). I leave the perception as to which of those stakeholders gets the lions share to your own individual politics, but any of those results in any proportion seems like a positive result to me.

Increased wages? Lower prices? that's not how you Japanese.

Higher dividends? Maybe...but amakudari jobs...ahhh, now we're talking!

[Salty]

cutting corporate taxes by at least 3.3 percentage points next year

...and raising the consumption tax? Those poor, needy Japanese corporations need our help!!

I don't know how serious you are about this comment, but I will say that corporate tax has almost zero effect, good or bad, apart from being only one factor in the decision for a multinational to relocate or not. Otherwise, lower corporate taxes just means more money available for the other stakeholders, be they investor owners (through increased dividends -> higher income tax, usually at a higher marginal rate than corporate tax was anyway), or employees (through increased wages -> higher income tax, usually at a higher marginal rate than corporate tax was anyway), or customers (through lower prices). I leave the perception as to which of those stakeholders gets the lions share to your own individual politics, but any of those results in any proportion seems like a positive result to me.

Lower taxes across the board would be just fine - but what is indeed happening, is raising taxes on individuals while lowering them on capital. If Japan had a lack of capital - that would be just fine.

Lower corporate tax does not generally cause an increase in wages - which are based upon alternative costs.

IMO, when the justification for increased consumption taxation is the national debt and paying for an aging society, corporations should not be left off the hook while a bloated government continues to spend lavishly on them.

[wagyl]

My point is that capital is owned by individuals, and those individuals very often have a marginal tax liability greater than the corporate tax rate.

The other way to look at it is to ask who is actually paying corporate tax, where does that tax burden finally lie. Imagine a world where corporate taxes were introduced from 0% to 30%. How would the corporation raise that money to pay the tax? By some cost cutting, maybe, but mostly by just raising prices. So it is the consumer, individuals, who bear the burden of corporate tax anyway. This act is very commonly overlooked because it is easy to think that the corporations are paying "not using my money," but in fact they are.

[matsuki]

My point is that capital is owned by individuals, and those individuals very often have a marginal tax liability greater than the corporate tax rate.

The other way to look at it is to ask who is actually paying corporate tax, where does that tax burden finally lie. Imagine a world where corporate taxes were introduced from 0% to 30%. How would the corporation raise that money to pay the tax? By some cost cutting, maybe, but mostly by just raising prices. So it is the consumer, individuals, who bear the burden of corporate tax anyway. This act is very commonly overlooked because it is easy to think that the corporations are paying "not using my money," but in fact they are.

Damn you and your big picture!

[Salty]

Yes I understand the marginal rates – but just as often the marginal rates are indeed lower for the corporation. Think retired owners, or just well paid employees. Plus, increased AT profits are not necessarily disbursed and when not, have no additional taxation until they are, if ever.

Consumption taxes are paid by both corporation and individuals – but corporations get the tax treated as business expense and thus a reduction in pre-tax revenue, while individuals get no such break (except for this planed yen 4,000). Plus the individual has already paid his income taxes, so the consumption tax is a form of double taxation.

Lower corporate tax is a favor to owners of capital while higher consumption tax is a taking (mostly) from individuals.

If the debt needs to be paid, and the social bills paid – corporate taxes should not be lowered while (individual) consumption taxes are increased. Again – where capital is plentiful (not after a major war, etc.)

[wagyl]

Yes I understand the marginal rates – but just as often the marginal rates are indeed lower for the corporation. Think retired owners, or just well paid employees. Plus, increased AT profits are not necessarily disbursed and when not, have no additional taxation until they are, if ever.

Consumption taxes are paid by both corporation and individuals – but corporations get the tax treated as business expense and thus a reduction in pre-tax revenue, while individuals get no such break (except for this planed yen 4,000). Plus the individual has already paid his income taxes, so the consumption tax is a form of double taxation.

Lower corporate tax is a favor to owners of capital while higher consumption tax is a taking (mostly) from individuals.

If the debt needs to be paid, and the social bills paid – corporate taxes should not be lowered while (individual) consumption taxes are increased. Again – where capital is plentiful (not after a major war, etc.)

I fear that there might be a very simplistic view of the various purposes of taxation, and where the burden of taxation lies, as well as a fair dose of dogmatic political belief (and taxation is an inherently political subject) so I doubt much will be gained by further comment: we appear to have differing views.

But, I will just say that you claim that taxing income and consumption is double taxation on the part of the individual. No love for the capitalist, double taxed when the company he owns pays corporate tax, and then again on his dividends?

Also, claiming that profits will be stored long term and never disbursed is a fallacy. I can think of one famous technology firm which famously stores profits offshore, and only pays dividends reluctantly and if possible when there is a tax amnesty. in other words, the only reason the company is not distributing profits is as a tax reduction scheme. If there was not a tax liability, the company would pay out greater dividends. They are not interested in having their money sleep on a tropical island paradise, they would prefer to have that money either invested and working, or back in the hands of their eager shareholders. It is the tax system which is skewing their behaviour, and you can not argue that their unusual behaviour as a result of the tax regime would not change if the root causes of it were no longer there.

Also, you claim that businesses get to claim back the consumption tax they paid to their suppliers. Yes, they do. Otherwise the current 8% would be collected again at each transaction, wholesale and retail, and it would be double taxation! Some other countries call the equivalent tax Value Added Tax, and it is the exact same system: tax collected from consumers less tax paid to suppliers, so that it is a tax on the value added to the goods and services by the transaction.

Anyway, I get the idea that it feels good to complain about tax and changes in the system, especially when you can imagine that it is not the final consumer upon whom the burden of corporate tax lies. Ultimately, nobody who matters cares what you or I think.

[Salty]

Yes I understand the marginal rates – but just as often the marginal rates are indeed lower for the corporation. Think retired owners, or just well paid employees. Plus, increased AT profits are not necessarily disbursed and when not, have no additional taxation until they are, if ever.

Consumption taxes are paid by both corporation and individuals – but corporations get the tax treated as business expense and thus a reduction in pre-tax revenue, while individuals get no such break (except for this planed yen 4,000). Plus the individual has already paid his income taxes, so the consumption tax is a form of double taxation.

Lower corporate tax is a favor to owners of capital while higher consumption tax is a taking (mostly) from individuals.

If the debt needs to be paid, and the social bills paid – corporate taxes should not be lowered while (individual) consumption taxes are increased. Again – where capital is plentiful (not after a major war, etc.)

I fear that there might be a very simplistic view of the various purposes of taxation, and where the burden of taxation lies, as well as a fair dose of dogmatic political belief (and taxation is an inherently political subject) so I doubt much will be gained by further comment: we appear to have differing views.

But, I will just say that you claim that taxing income and consumption is double taxation on the part of the individual. No love for the capitalist, double taxed when the company he owns pays corporate tax, and then again on his dividends?

Also, claiming that profits will be stored long term and never disbursed is a fallacy. I can think of one famous technology firm which famously stores profits offshore, and only pays dividends reluctantly and if possible when there is a tax amnesty. in other words, the only reason the company is not distributing profits is as a tax reduction scheme. If there was not a tax liability, the company would pay out greater dividends. They are not interested in having their money sleep on a tropical island paradise, they would prefer to have that money either invested and working, or back in the hands of their eager shareholders. It is the tax system which is skewing their behaviour, and you can not argue that their unusual behaviour as a result of the tax regime would not change if the root causes of it were no longer there.

Also, you claim that businesses get to claim back the consumption tax they paid to their suppliers. Yes, they do. Otherwise the current 8% would be collected again at each transaction, wholesale and retail, and it would be double taxation! Some other countries call the equivalent tax Value Added Tax, and it is the exact same system: tax collected from consumers less tax paid to suppliers, so that it is a tax on the value added to the goods and services by the transaction.

Anyway, I get the idea that it feels good to complain about tax and changes in the system, especially when you can imagine that it is not the final consumer upon whom the burden of corporate tax lies. Ultimately, nobody who matters cares what you or I think.

I believe that you missed my point on company consumption tax, but maybe not. The net consumption tax that they pay, gets treated as business expense and thus lowers their corporate tax. In effect a company does not pay consumption tax except on plant and equipment investments.

Companies that carry over retained earnings (thus not taxed by individual taxation at a potentially higher marginal rate) can use those funds in future periods to manage their distributions to keep shareholder taxes low. They can also use it to build non-productive perks – think TEPCO`s investment in resorts used by their executives and possibly offsetting higher expenses caused by mega shareholders.

I do not think that capital should pay all taxes – but rather a fair share given that companies benefit from government services. If corporate tax was zero, then the full burden would fall on individuals, many of whom are not shareholders or even employed.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Japan opposition tries to halt vote on contentious security bills

girlfight.jpg

Japanese opposition lawmakers were battling on Thursday to prevent a vote on security bills that could allow troops to fight abroad for the first time since World War Two, part of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's agenda to ease the limits of the pacifist constitution.

The policy shift, which Abe says is vital to meet challenges such as a rising China, has sparked huge public protests and sharply eroded popular support for the premier.

Opponents argue it violates the constitution and fear it could ensnare Japan in U.S.-led conflicts.

Objections by shouting and jostling opposition members, who have vowed to block passage before parliament disperses on Sept. 27, delayed the start of an upper house panel whose approval is needed before the full chamber can vote the bills into law.

[Yokohammer]

The bill just passed the House of Councillors, but what a steaming freak show. I had to go out for a while this morning, but ended up parked in front of the TV from a little before lunch until the forced conclusion at around 4:30. Listened to all the speeches by the opposition party reps, who all had very reasonable appeals, as they have had all along, but in the end it was just "fuck you, we're passing the bill anyway" amid the typical J-pol rumble and punch-up.

Democracy in Japan has been on life support for quite a while, but I think the patient might have finally died. The general populace is overwhelmingly against the bill, the opposition parties are all against the bill ... it's just the in-Abe's-pocket Jimin-to, and they're ramming it through as hard as they can go using their house majority as leverage. If it was just the majority vote it wouldn't be so bad, but the blatant deception and trickery makes it just plain thuggish.

There will be more to this story, but what a freakin' mess.

[Russell]

The bill just passed the House of Councillors, but what a steaming freak show. I had to go out for a while this morning, but ended up parked in front of the TV from a little before lunch until the forced conclusion at around 4:30. Listened to all the speeches by the opposition party reps, who all had very reasonable appeals, as they have had all along, but in the end it was just "fuck you, we're passing the bill anyway" amid the typical J-pol rumble and punch-up.

Democracy in Japan has been on life support for quite a while, but I think the patient might have finally died. The general populace is overwhelmingly against the bill, the opposition parties are all against the bill ... it's just the in-Abe's-pocket Jimin-to, and they're ramming it through as hard as they can go using their house majority as leverage. If it was just the majority vote it wouldn't be so bad, but the blatant deception and trickery makes it just plain thuggish.

There will be more to this story, but what a freakin' mess.

In the end the population elected Abe and his comrades, so they do not have much of a say now, wouldn't they? Japan is after all not a Swiss-style democracy with referendums.

I guess I am just out of step with the population in Japan, because this is about the only measure I agree with Abe. Now finally Japan can be a reliable partner in a defense treaty with other countries, like the US.

[Yokohammer]

In the end the population elected Abe and his comrades, so they do not have much of a say now, wouldn't they?

I hear this argument a lot, but I don't find it convincing at all. It is very clear that Abe is not representing his electorate with this security bill. Politicians say whatever they need to say to get elected, and will then push a different agenda when in power. There's a lot of deception going on here.

The U.S. is quite happy, because it means that Japan will carry some of the weight when it comes to armed conflict. But given the U.S. war record of late I'm not sure that's a good thing.

Expect a skyrocketing defense budget, and be ready to pay the taxes to support it.

[Russell]

In the end the population elected Abe and his comrades, so they do not have much of a say now, wouldn't they?

I hear this argument a lot, but I don't find it convincing at all. It is very clear that Abe is not representing his electorate with this security bill. Politicians say whatever they need to say to get elected, and will then push a different agenda when in power. There's a lot of deception going on here.

The U.S. is quite happy, because it means that Japan will carry some of the weight when it comes to armed conflict. But given the U.S. war record of late I'm not sure that's a good thing.

Expect a skyrocketing defense budget, and be ready to pay the taxes to support it.

I'm not sure whether the collaboration with the US will increase the defense budget. I would rather argue the opposite: without the protection of the US, Japan would need to pay much more for its defense.

Regarding the U.S. war record, that is pretty abysmal over the last 70 years, but let's hope we'll get a Bernie Sanders / Elizabeth Warren administration in power in 2016.

[Yokohammer]

I'm not sure whether the collaboration with the US will increase the defense budget. I would rather argue the opposite: without the protection of the US, Japan would need to pay much more for its defense.

Whoops ... you got that backwards.

The whole point of this new legislation is that it allows Japan to protect the U.S! For that they'll need lots of nice shiny new military equipment, much of which is made in the good ol' U.S. of A. You can see where that is going.

The U.S. is already obliged to protect Japan. No changes required.

[Samurai_Jerk]

I'm not sure whether the collaboration with the US will increase the defense budget. I would rather argue the opposite: without the protection of the US, Japan would need to pay much more for its defense.

Whoops ... you got that backwards.

The whole point of this new legislation is that it allows Japan to protect the U.S! For that they'll need lots of nice shiny new military equipment, much of which is made in the good ol' U.S. of A. You can see where that is going.

The U.S. is already obliged to protect Japan. No changes required.

There has been some talk among neocons of rethinking the relationship with Japan if they don't take on more responsibility militarily.

[Coligny]

I'm not sure whether the collaboration with the US will increase the defense budget. I would rather argue the opposite: without the protection of the US, Japan would need to pay much more for its defense.

Whoops ... you got that backwards.

The whole point of this new legislation is that it allows Japan to protect the U.S! For that they'll need lots of nice shiny new military equipment, much of which is made in the good ol' U.S. of A. You can see where that is going.

The U.S. is already obliged to protect Japan. No changes required.

I know a country who have two brand new helicopters carriers for sale at a good price...

Just sayin...