As FreedomWorks Acts to Protect Donor Privacy, Leftist Groups Publish Home Addresses of Trump Donors

FreedomWorks Foundation is urging the IRS to protect donor privacy from threats and physical intimidation. Don’t let leftist mobs prevent you from donating to the causes that matter to you and your family. Make your voice heard HERE.

In 2013, liberty-loving Americans across the nation found out that their government was targeting them for increased financial scrutiny because of their political beliefs. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealed organizations with terms like “Tea Party” or “Freedom” in their name were being singled out for additional review by the agency. This made life harder on conservative organizations filing for tax exempt status to operate as nonprofits.

In August of this year, a member of Congress, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) posted a list of individuals in the San Antonio area who donated to President Trump. This was a member of Congress singling out his own constituents for harassment because they disagreed with him politically. It was a blatant and shameful form of intimidation.

Sadly, it seems that the left is not through trying to use fear to keep their opponents in the shadows. Rather than win the battle of ideas in a public forum, they would rather their political rivals be afraid to speak out under threat of bodily harm or economic ruin. This is a sad state for a constitutional republic that prides itself on freedom of expression to be in. Yet, it seems that that is the path upon which America now finds itself.

A leftist organization called Public Service Media Group, just launched a website called Racism Watch. Instead of trying to stop actual racism, what the site does is publish the names and home addresses of every single person in America who donated to the Donald Trump presidential campaign. This is dangerous. People will get hurt because of sites like this and it is time to put an end to it.

Radical leftists are now willing to assault journalists who don’t cover them favorably. They have defended the idea of “Punching Nazis” to make a political statement. The problem is that leftists now broadly classify anyone who disagrees with them as racists or Nazi sympathizers. They are coming for all conservatives and won’t make distinctions. Now, these same people who want to bring violence to you for your beliefs, want to be able to do so at your homes, where your family eats, sleeps, and lives. This is unacceptable.

Thankfully, the IRS, now under the Trump administration, is considering a rule that would protect the privacy and identity of all donors to 501(c)(4) political organizations. This is an important step to ensuring that mob rule and political violence does not govern discourse in the United States.

The FreedomWorks Foundation’s Regulatory Action Center is driving public support for this reform. It is vitally important that political arguments be won and lost on their merits, not because of physical threats or intimidation. You can make your voice heard by telling the IRS to protect donor privacy HERE or at the link at the top of this article. Together, we can halt the leftist mobs in their tracks and protect freedom of expression for all Americans.
CLICK HERE TO GET HELP

Image result for ORDER NOW IMAGES

FreedomWorks Statement in Support of RSC Healthcare Plan

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In response to the House Republican Study Committee’s (RSC) launch today of its healthcare plan, A Framework for Personalized, Affordable Care, which if implemented would lower costs, benefit consumer choice, and improve the quality of care, Jason Pye, FreedomWorks Vice President of Legislative Affairs, commented:

“We’re thrilled to see a coalition in Congress with a healthcare plan that is based around individual choice and ownership of health insurance. The RSC plan also respects federalism by allowing states to decide how best to extend affordable coverage for their residents.

“From the large expansion of health savings accounts to the elimination of many provisions of current law that have made health insurance coverage so unaffordable, Americans across the country will benefit from the choice afforded to them by this plan.

“Most importantly, the RSC’s proposal would do more to provide accessible and affordable care than either Obamacare or Medicare for All could ever accomplish.”
CLICK HERE TO GET HELP

Image result for ORDER NOW IMAGES

Irrationality in Negotiations: How to Negotiate the Impossible

Adapted from “Is Your Counterpart Irrational…Really?” by Program on Negotiation faculty member Deepak Malhotra, leader of the NEW one-day course, Negotiating the Impossible, following our three-day executive education course, Negotiation and Leadership.
Negotiators often struggle with the task of bargaining with those who behave rashly, reason poorly, and act in ways that contradict their own self-interest. But as it turns out, behavior that negotiators often view as evidence of irrationality may in fact indicate something entirely different.

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Examples of Irrational Negotiators at the Bargaining Table
Here’s one example. Back in 2005, the White House announced its plans to increase the amount of food aid given to countries that are in dire need of such support. As with any proposal, there were those who avidly supported the initiative and those who opposed it.
Surprisingly, however, one of the groups that opposed the proposal was a consortium of nonprofit organizations whose mission is to increase food aid to needy countries! What can explain this seemingly irrational and self-defeating behavior?
Consider how these nonprofit organizations have operated in the past. To increase food aid to foreign countries, they have partnered with American farmers to lobby the government for greater foreign aid. What do the farmers have to gain from this deal? Clearly, the more aid the U.S. government gives, the more food it will buy from U.S. farmers.
However, mindful of escalating budget deficits, the White House decided that foreign food aid could be increased only if the government could purchase the food more cheaply. To do this, the United States would have to buy the food from developing countries instead of from American farmers.
The proposal, which should have been a double-win for the nonprofits (increased food aid and increased support of poor farmers in developing countries), instead became a difficult dilemma. Supporting the proposal would require the nonprofits to weaken or even sever ties with their longstanding coalition partner, the American farmer (see also, Win-Win Negotiations: Can’t Beat Them? Join Them). This predicament explains why the nonprofits ultimately opposed the new foreign-aid proposal. Though questionable on other grounds, their decision was quite likely not irrational.
The same dynamic plays out in many negotiations. When a manager loses a star employee because she refuses to match a competitor’s salary offer, this doesn’t mean the manager is irrational. Rather, she may be constrained by an HR policy that restricts her ability to pay some employees significantly more than others. In other instances, a negotiator may be constrained because of advice from legal counsel, limited wiggle room on specific issues, promises or commitments already made to other parties, time pressure, and so on.
Irrational – or Unable? Power in Negotiations and Optimal Negotiated Agreements
In a negotiation, when a firm’s representative is unwilling to grant even seemingly reasonable concessions (see also, Four Strategies for Making Concessions), you might question his rationality—or you might try to find out how much authority he has to negotiate a comprehensive, value-maximizing deal.
Effective negotiators try to discover these constraints and help the other party overcome them rather than dismiss her as irrational.
The star employee facing a seemingly irrational and inflexible manager might ask for concessions on other issues besides salary. Receiving a higher year-end bonus, a promotion, more vacation time, or stock options might retain the employee without putting the manager in a difficult position. Finally, if a representative is heavily constrained, you may want to negotiate with someone who has greater deal-making authority.
 
Related Article: Trust in Negotiations
Negotiation Skills for Building Trust at the Bargaining Table
Reciprocity at the Bargaining Table – How to Use Tradeoffs to Create Value in Integrative Negotiation Scenarios
Top 10 Conflict Resolution Posts

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Adapted from “Is Your Counterpart Irrational…Really?” by Deepak Malhotra (professor, Harvard Business School), first published in the Negotiation newsletter, March 2006.
The post Irrationality in Negotiations: How to Negotiate the Impossible appeared first on PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER NOW!

International Negotiation Role Playing: Understanding the Theory and Practice of Systemic Peacebuilding

Policymakers, practitioners, and academics have seized on the need for peacebuilding negotiation strategies in international negotiation to be as complex and adaptive as the societies within which they work.
As a result, there are loud calls for “whole of government” or “whole of community” approaches that cross traditional sectoral boundaries.  The problem is that these approaches are very difficult to implement.
In a talk back in 2012, Rob Ricigliano presented an overview of his new book, Making Peace Last (April 2012), which articulates the theory and practice of systemic peacebuilding; a holistic approach to dealing with complex adaptive social systems in negotiations.  The author has worked with USAID, the US Department of State, and the US Department of Defense to integrate systems thinking tools into their assessment and planning frameworks.

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

A CASE STUDY:
Veritas and Pulchra are neighboring countries with a long history of friendly, mutually beneficial relations. Recently, however, relations between the two countries have been strained due to a catastrophic industrial accident wherein a concentrated form of the Class M chemical pesticide DS-30 leaked from a chemical plant in Veritas near the Pulchran border, adversely affecting a large tract of Pulchran farmland. To comply with Pulchran regulations on Class M pesticides, a significant amount of Pulchran wheat had to be destroyed because of excessive exposure to DS-30.
Compensation and emergency relief to affected Pulchran farmers are central issues in that country’s upcoming elections, but the Pulchran National Legislature is unwilling to appropriate any money without first getting some commitment from Veritas to pay for the damage it caused. There are a wide range of standards that the two countries could use to determine the amount and nature of compensation. Because of significant political concerns, negotiators from each country’s Foreign Ministry have been asked to meet and settle this case quickly.
MECHANICS:
The case is designed for one negotiator on each side, though pairing participants and running the case as a 2-on-2 negotiation can also work. The participants should take approximately 30 minutes to negotiate. A review and discussion period requires 45-60 minutes.
MAJOR LESSONS:

This simulation provides a good vehicle for illustrating various negotiation strategies. There are a fair number of interests with varying intensities, some shared, some dovetailing, and others conflicting. Options for joint gain are plentiful.

The range of possible agreements is wide; by comparing agreements the usefulness of generating options should emerge.

It almost always pays to maintain cordial working relations with adversaries, even in the face of substantial disagreement. Energy should be focused on solving the problem, not “beating” the other side.

About Robert Ricigliano
Robert Ricigliano is the Director of the Institute of World Affairs, Center for International Education at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, where he teaches International Mediation and Peacebuilding through the Department of Communication, and he is the Coordinator of the Certificate in Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution. He is also a former Executive Director of the Conflict Management Group and served as an Associate Director of the Harvard Negotiation Project at Harvard Law School.
Mr. Ricigliano has worked to incorporate systems thinking tools into peacebuilding, including projects with the US Agency for International Development and the Department of Defense. He has worked with officials all over the world to help resolve a conflict in international negotiation. He has worked with political parties in the new Iraqi Parliament and has been involved in peacebuilding interventions in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Russia, Georgia, Colombia, South Africa, and elsewhere.
This article was drawn from an event held by the Program on Negotiation, “Systems Thinking and Peacebuilding: A New Frontier?” with Robert Ricigliano, Director of the Institute of World Affairs, Center for International Education at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee on Thursday, April 5, 2012.
What stories do you have to share about international negotiation? Leave a comment.
See also: Cross-Cultural Negotiation Role-Play: DS-30 and  Negotiation and Nonviolent Action – Interacting in a World of Conflict – Negotiation strategies for engaging in conflict resolution using nonviolent action have helped resolve or manage intractable disputes. Experts and practitioners of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), mediation, and conflict management professionals underestimate of negotiation or non-violent action as a means to resolve disputes. This article discusses the intersection of negotiation research and nonviolent action. It examines each field’s commitment to constructive engagement with conflict resolution scenarios.  

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Related International Negotiation Article: International Negotiations and Agenda Setting
Originally published on March 20, 2012.
The post International Negotiation Role Playing: Understanding the Theory and Practice of Systemic Peacebuilding appeared first on PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER NOW!

Key Vote NO on the Corporate Transparency Act, H.R. 2513

On behalf of our activist community, I urge you to contact your representative and ask him or her to vote NO on the Corporate Transparency Act, H.R. 2513. The Corporate Transparency Act is framed as legislation that would crack down on fraudulent shell companies and money laundering, but the bill would actually do little to do this, instead simply creating five new federal crimes for paperwork violations for all companies in America, unduly burdening perfectly legitimate businesses. Additionally, the bill may have long-term privacy implications.

The Corporate Transparency Act would amend the Bank Secrecy Act to require an applicant seeking to form a corporation or limited liability company (LLC) to disclose the “beneficial owners” of the entity. The applicant must also file an annual report with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) that lists any beneficial owners. The initial filing and the annual reports must include the full legal name of the beneficial owner, his or her date of birth, residential address or business address, and an identification number from either a passport, identification card or driver’s license.

Under this bill, the term “beneficial owner” is vague. Although one determination is objective — one owning “25 percent or more of the equity” of the business — the other two definitions are open for interpretation. Specifically, the bill would include as a beneficial owner an individual who “directly or indirectly…exercises substantial control” over of a corporation or LLC, or “receives substantial economic benefits from the assets” of the entity. The definition of “substantial economic benefit” is defined, but insufficiently so, leaving it open to later rulemaking and possible severe misinterpretation by unelected government bureaucrats.

Although there are some exceptions now provided — which had not been the case in the past versions of the bill — for people such as minor children, the definition of a beneficial owner still remains overly broad.

In May, FreedomWorks joined a letter with the Due Process Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union expressing concerns about the Corporate Transparency Act. The letter noted the vague definition of a beneficial owner: “What does it mean to indirectly control an entity? The bill does not explain.”

What is perhaps most perplexing about the Corporate Transparency Act is that it targets small businesses by explicitly excluding businesses that have more than 20 employees and more than $5 million in gross receipts or sales. The bill would create paperwork burdens for these small businesses that will be required to comply with the mandates of the bill.

Although larger corporations and LLCs do not need to file the beneficial ownership information, they would be required to make a separate filing to FinCEN explaining why the entity ought to be excluded from the requirement. In other words, every corporation or LLC will have to file some type of paperwork with FinCEN on an annual basis and be subject to civil and criminal penalties. In addition to businesses, the bill’s reporting requirements would also apply to certain small nonprofits, in an effort to mandate further donor disclosures.

With some 5,000 criminal statutes and an estimated 300,000 that carry criminal penalties, over-criminalization has been a growing concern. The Corporate Transparency Act would create five new federal crimes, but unelected bureaucracy likely will exacerbate the impact of those criminal penalities through the rulemaking authority that would be given to the Department of the Treasury. This rulemaking authority could potentially expand the requirements for businesses and, in turn, widen the scope of potential criminal liability.

Another aspect that members should consider is the intent of the Corporate Transparency Act. This bill will not be the end of this. Leftist groups want the names of beneficial owners published online. In May, a representative of the Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency (FACT) Coalition told the Washington Post, “Every official member of our coalition agrees that this information should ultimately be made public.” A quick look at the FACT Coalition’s membership reveals a long list of leftist groups, including the AFL-CIO, Citizens for Tax Justice, Fair Share, Friends of the Earth, and Public Citizen. Funding for the FACT Coalition comes from several sources, including the George Soros-founded Open Society Foundations.

FreedomWorks will count the vote on the Corporate Transparency Act, H.R. 2513, when calculating our Scorecard for 2019 and reserves the right to score any amendments and weight any votes. The scorecard is used to determine eligibility for the FreedomFighter Award, which recognizes members of the House and Senate who consistently vote to support economic freedom and individual liberty.

Sincerely,

Adam Brandon, President, FreedomWorks
Files:  KVN_10_21_2019_Corporate_Transparency_Act_H.R._2513.pdf
CLICK HERE TO GET HELP

Image result for ORDER NOW IMAGES

Capitol Hill Update: October 21, 2019

Schedule:

The House and Senate are in session this week.

House:

The House returns today. Legislative business begins at 2:00 pm. Votes are postponed until 6:30 pm. There are 12 bills coming to the floor under suspension of the rules. The suspensions are listed below.

H.R. 4406, Small Business Development Centers Improvement Act
H.R. 4405, Women’s Business Centers Improvements Act
H.R. 4407, SCORE for Small Business Act
H.R. 4387, To establish Growth Accelerator Fund Competition within the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes
H.R. 835, Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act
H.R. 2426, CASE Act
S. 693, National POW/MIA Flag Act
H.R. 724, PACT Act
H.R. 1123, Divisional Realignment for the Eastern District of Arkansas Act
H.R. 598, Georgia Support Act
H.Res. 552, Calling on the Government of the Russian Federation to provide evidence of wrongdoing or to release United States citizen Paul Whelan
H.Con.Res. 32, Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the execution-style murders of United States citizens Ylli, Agron, and Mehmet Bytyqi in the Republic of Serbia in July 1999
Technically, there are three rule bills on the House floor this week. Those bills are the Stopping Harmful Interference in Elections for a Lasting Democracy (SHIELD) Act, H.R. 4617; the Corporate Transparency Act, H.R. 2513; a yet-to-be numbered resolution opposing the selection of Trump National Doral to host the 2020 G7 Summit. The text of the latter also isn’t available. The House Rules Committee will meet on Monday at 5:00 pm to consider the rule and amendments for H.R. 2513. The committee will meet again on Tuesday at 3:00 pm for H.R. 4617 and the resolution opposing Trump National Doral as the location for the 2020 G7 Summit. H.Res. 630, the resolution censuring Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, will be considered on the House floor on Monday. We should note that there won’t be any votes in the House on Thursday and Friday.

The SHIELD Act is aimed at foreign influence in elections, but it has problematic provisions. The bill would require campaigns to report contacts, in detail, with a “covered foreign national,” who would be defined as an office of a foreign government or political party, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Election Commission. The bill establishes a criminal penalty of up to five years in prison and/or a $500,000 fine if someone willfully fails to comply and up to five years and/or a $1 million fine if someone knowingly or willfully destroys of documents related to a foreign contact.

The SHIELD Act also includes a version of the Honest Ads Act, which was part of H.R. 1. The Honest Ads Act is framed as combating foreign influence, but it goes much further. The bill would expand the definition of a “qualified political advertisement” to include “a message relating to any political matter of national importance,” such as mentioning “a candidate” or “a national legislative issue of public importance.” It would require digital platforms like Facebook and Twitter to maintain, and make publicly available, a database of any request to purchase a “qualified political advertisement” that exceeds $500. This would include advertisements on legislative issues pending before Congress, which may not even mention a candidate. This public file would also include the contact information of the purchaser, which could have privacy implications. Finally, the SHIELD Act would require businesses to certify that contributions didn’t derive from a foreign source or have a foreign influence. Business-run PACs would also have to certify that foreign nationals had no influence in the decision-making process, that the individual who runs the PAC is an American citizen, and any board member who is a foreign national abstained from any decision-making on a contribution, independent expenditure, and so on. There’s more to the SHIELD Act. You can read the section-by-section here. The American Civil Liberties Union has come out in opposition to the bill.

We anticipated that the Corporate Transparency Act would come to the floor as a suspension, but House Democratic leadership decided to bring it out as a rule bill. The bill is framed as legislation that would crack down on fraudulent shell companies and money laundering, but the bill would actually do little to do this, instead simply creating five new federal crimes for paperwork violations for all companies in America, unduly burdening perfectly legitimate businesses. Additionally, the bill may have long-term privacy implications. In May, FreedomWorks put out a letter of opposition against the Corporate Transparency Act that highlighted our concerns about the bill.

The resolution opposing Trump National Doral as the location for the 2020 G7 Summit may no longer serve a purpose. On Saturday, President Trump tweeted, “[W]e will no longer consider Trump National Doral, Miami, as the Host Site for the G-7 in 2020. We will begin the search for another site, including the possibility of Camp David, immediately.” The selection of the site was immediately criticized by Democrats, who said that it was a violation of the Emoluments Clause of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.

We thought that this would come up last week, but Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), the sponsor of H.Res. 630, asked to delay a vote out of respect for Rep. Cummings. As we mentioned last week, the resolution, which was reintroduced last week, would censure Rep. Schiff for lying about the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. A censure is a formal and severe reprimand in which the member subject to the censure standing in the well of the House while the Speaker or Speaker-designate reads the resolution.

On Tuesday at 9:30 am, the House Ways and Means Committee will markup five bills, including the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, H.R. 3. As we noted last week, H.R. 3 would import foreign price controls from nations with single-payer healthcare and, ultimately, will harm innovation and leadership in the United States on the development and manufacture of prescription drugs. The bill was marked up last week by the Energy and Commerce and Education and Labor committees. Ranking Members Kevin Brady (R-Texas), Greg Walden (R-Oregon), and Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) recently wrote about their concerns with H.R. 3. During the business meeting at which H.R. 3 will be marked up, Ways and Means will also mark up three bills to expand Medicare benefits under Part B. The bills are the Medicare Dental Act, H.R. 4650; the Medicare Vision Act, H.R. 4665; and the Medicare Hearing Act, H.R. 4618. The bills were marked up last week by Energy and Commerce. Medicare faces unfunded liabilities of $42.3 trillion. Part B alone faces a $28.8 trillion shortfall.

The committee schedule for the week is here.

Senate:

The Senate will return at 3:00 pm today and will consider Treaty Document 116-1, Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of the Republic of North Macedonia. A vote on the cloture motion is expected around 5:30 pm. This week, the Senate will also consider the nomination of Andrew Bremberg to serve as the Representative of the United States of America to the Office of the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva. Appropriations will consume time this week. Leader McConnell filed cloture on H.R. 3055 and H.R. 2740. These are essentially shells that will be used for the Senate substitutes. The Senate Appropriations Committee has completed work on ten of the regular appropriations bills for FY 2020. The bills that the committee hasn’t completed are Labor-Health and Human Services, and Education and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. The current continuing resolution (CR) runs through November 21.

The committee schedule for the week is here.
CLICK HERE TO GET HELP

Image result for ORDER NOW IMAGES

In a Price Negotiation, Should You Make the First Offer?

Imagine yourself in a dilemma that only a privileged few experience: You’ve fallen in love with a dazzling, one-of-a-kind home that’s on the market without a list price. Instead, the seller’s broker encourages you to name your price. You’re unsure how much to offer—yet desperate to win the prize. 
Leaving the sale price off of a property is an unusual but not unheard-of practice in luxury real estate, writes Katherine Clarke in the Wall Street Journal. Beyond such current negotiations in the news, price negotiation raises interesting questions about when sellers should name their price—and when buyers should make the opening move.

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Beyond Anchors
Abundant research on the anchoring effect, documented by psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, shows that the first offer made in a negotiation serves as an anchor that has a strong effect on the final price. For this reason, negotiators are often advised to try to engage in price anchoring by making the first offer.
In real estate, some brokers caution that leaving a home unpriced limits the pool of buyers, as it cannot be listed on online real-estate websites, such as Zillow, Trulia, and Realtor.com, without a price. Sotheby’s International Realty senior marketing VP Bradley Nelson told the Journal that not naming a price is “like being half pregnant” and can reflect owners’ ambivalence about whether they want to sell.
In fact, the decision of whether to make the first offer in a price negotiation requires in-depth analysis. First, in preparation for negotiation, assess your best alternative to a negotiated agreement, or BATNA; your target; and your reservation price—your point of indifference between accepting a deal and pursuing your BATNA. Next, estimate your counterpart’s BATNA, target, and reservation price. That will help you identify the zone of possible agreement, or ZOPA—the range of options that both sides would find acceptable. 
When you believe you know more about the ZOPA than the other party, you generally should feel comfortable dropping an aggressive anchor near the top of the ZOPA. This is typically the case for sellers who know a great deal about what they’re selling—and more than the buyer does. The longtime owner of a house generally should feel comfortable advertising an ambitious list price, for example. 
By contrast, when your counterpart knows more about the ZOPA, you’ll have trouble dropping an effective anchor. A job candidate, for instance, may be less knowledgeable than the recruiter about the possible salary range for a given job—and may be wise to let the recruiter make the first offer during salary negotiation. 
Uniqueness and Scarcity
When a commodity is unique or offers special value to certain bidders, sellers may also see an advantage in allowing buyers to bid first. 
In auction lingo, an item that offers different value to different bidders is known as a private-value asset. One bidder might want to procure the painting you’re selling as an investment piece, while another bidder may covet it because his great-grandmother was the artist. By contrast, common-value assets, such as an oil lease or a condo in a large new building, have more or less equal value to all bidders—it’s worth the same amount to all potential buyers.
When a private-value asset is for sale, one or more bidders may be willing to pay much more than others would. If that’s a possibility, you might leave the price unspecified and hope you can find at least one, and preferably several, of these bidders. 
Advice for Buyers
Turning to price negotiation tactics on the buyer side, when a seller asks you to bid first or is cagey about disclosing the price, she may be hoping that emotion will drive your decision making. You could end up overpaying and regretting your purchase. 
To make more rational decisions in a price negotiation, try to fall in love with several properties (or whatever commodity you’re shopping for) rather than just one, advises Harvard Business School professor Max H. Bazerman. When you have one or two appealing BATNAs, you’ll be less tempted to overbid. Moreover, if you believe the seller is less certain than you are about an item’s market value, try to persuade him to drop the first anchor, as it could be in your favor. 
What other factors do you consider when engaged in a price negotiation?
The post In a Price Negotiation, Should You Make the First Offer? appeared first on PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER NOW!

Rand Paul Is Right: Higher Income Earners Pay Enough Federal Income Taxes

Earlier this week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) appeared on ABC’s The View to talk about his new book, The Case Against Socialism. During the interview, Paul remarked that the “[m]ost people [who earn] below $50,000 don’t pay any income tax.” He added that the top 1 percent of income earners pay 40 percent of income taxes.

Unsurprisingly, the audience expressed disbelief, which, one can reasonably surmise, comes from the class warfare rhetoric of Democratic presidential candidates and congressional Democrats, who never fail to claim that higher-income earners don’t pay enough in income taxes.

Anyone who watched the Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday saw the class warfare rhetoric was very much at the forefront, particularly from socialist candidates like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Sanders, for example, said, “[T]he American people do not want tax breaks for billionaires. They want the rich to start paying their fair share of taxes.”

Well, Paul was right. The top 1 percent do, in fact, pay a disproportionate share of income taxes compared to the share of taxable income earned. In fact, PolitiFact has already given Paul a “mostly true” rating. The statistic he used comes from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), which, earlier this year, released its tax revenue projections for 2019. The report found that those who earn $50,000 or less have a negative tax liability and a negative tax rate.

Now, it’s important to note that these data reflect the distribution of income taxes under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which became law in December 2017 and took effect for individual income tax filers in tax year 2018. Additionally, these figures don’t include other taxes paid by individuals that are collected by the federal government, such as payroll taxes.

Some may say that the share of the income tax paid by the top 1 percent of income earners was higher before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act became law. Although these figures came from a different data set, we’re previous explained that the top 3 percent of tax filers in tax year 2016 paid 51 percent of all income taxes, according to data collected by the Internal Revenue Service. Data for tax year 2017 are available, and we’ll explore what that data say below.

We had to estimate the income tax information for the bottom 50 percent, as the IRS doesn’t specifically include that data in the relevant file. Separating this out some, we can see that the top 1 percent of income earners paid 38.5 percent of income taxes in 2017 while the bottom 50 percent paid 61.5 percent of income taxes. Taking that a step further, comparing the top 1 percent to the bottom 99 percent, we can see that the bottom 99 percent paid 61.5 percent of income taxes.

In keeping the spirit of last year’s piece on this subject, we looked at the top 3 percent of income earners compared to the bottom 97 percent. As the table below shows, in 2017, the top 3 percent of income earners earned 30.4 percent of taxable income and paid 52 percent of income taxes while the bottom 97 percent earned 69.6 percent of income and paid 48 percent of income taxes.

Put simply, Democratic presidential candidates, as well as congressional Democrats, aren’t being honest about income taxes. Confiscatory taxation, which is what many Democrats appear to want, would reduce the incentive to work and harm investment in the economy. That would translate to lost economic growth and fewer available jobs.

We have to stop treating “wealth” and “profit” as dirty words. Where does one think jobs come from? Without wealth and profit, the incentive to create goods and services wouldn’t exist and, therefore, jobs wouldn’t exist. This is what distinguishes a mostly free economy, like we have in the United States, from a largely centrally-planned socialist economy that rations goods and services.
CLICK HERE TO GET HELP

Image result for ORDER NOW IMAGES