I pay the equivalent of my mortgage in taxes every month... in other words, I could have bought 2 houses, or had money left over to live large. But no. The government feels it can do more for me than I could for myself.
>>705139424 >Except people that rich hire tax lawyers to avoid exactly this kind of retardation.
Exactly. The people who are going to fucked by this the most is family business owners. Father dies, leaves the business to his son. The son now has to pay a huge tax bill based on the value of the business, but doesn't have the liquid assets to do it, so he is forced to sell the business. It's fucking disgusting.
Rich people have all their assets in trusts, overseas accounts, tax-exempt funds, etc...I am a law student and took an entire course called "Trusts and Estates," so I'm well-versed in this topic.
>>705140322 No shit. I'm a landowner and the estate tax is fucking robbery. When you die, you are taxed for the right to convey wealth and property that has literally been taxed the entire time that you've accumulated it. Estate taxes are confiscation so that the government can give more money to fucking welfare mother so theys can gets they nails done.
>>705139757 because if you want to protect your capital, make sure to run off to russia, they have a history of being very supportive of capitalism and the wealthy. No, never had any issues with that in the past there....
>>705141077 >assets protected This is exactly why this new tax will do absolutely nothing. Rich fucks won't give a shit because they tend to either go full on philanthropist in old age, or they hide their shit overseas. Anyone who isn't a rich fuck won't be affected by this at all.
This is exactly why most people believe Clinton will be another 4 years of pretty much nothing.
>>705141515 They can pull the same trick the Kennedys did when Jackie kicked the bucket. Have an estimator come in and lowball all the stuff, pay taxes on that amount, then continue to sell it for vastly more than the esitmator said it was worth.
>>705141970 lol I hadn't heard about this before. that's a pretty slick trick. fucking Kennedys, man. I'm so glad so many of them died in unpleasant ways - two assassinations, private plane crash, skiing accident...
>>705140854 >hurr rich employers are gonna leave and take er jerbs Anyone who feels that they deserve over a billion dollars in their personal accounts simply because they're at the top of the management chain of some company and not pay an estate tax can feel free to GTFO. There are plenty of capable business owners, who aren't nearly as greedy, who can take their place.
>>705142418 Are you fucking stupid? Yes they did. Science programs in most places were BETTER back then. In the last 40 years there's only been a couple chapters to each section added. You learn the basics in school which was discovered long ago.
>>705143554 Yes. If youwork hard and save money your entire life, you should be able to hand that down to your children without the government coming in and taking it from you because that money is already been taxed
>>705143917 >>705144254 There isn't a single billionaire out there who came by that money legitimately. They all have a past of shady and/or outright illegal business deals. They don't deserve that money at all. Unfortunately, their shady past usually doesn't come to light until long after people stop caring.
Also, when they hoard their wealth, it doesn't contribute to the economy at all. There is always a finite pool of wealth. With trillions of dollars locked up among the personal accounts of a few families, that leaves a much smaller pool of wealth for everyone else to fight over.
>>705138674 Those that make over 5 million individually, and couples that combined make $10 million will be the only ones that will pay for the tax. However, this is implying anyone that is that rich does not hide their money in the Cayman Islands by now.
>>705144571 No, he's full of shit. There are ways to hide money overseas, but it's expensive (you know, kind of like taxes are). People that would ahve to pay super-high taxes do use these means to evade taxes because the expenses in doing so are cheaper than the taxes. But it's not cheap.
Trusts & funds can reduce your taxes but not remove them. Source: I use both to manage my family's resources and someone, somewhere along the line, always pays taxes in some way on large amounts of money. Yes, there are ways to pass off some money tax-free, but not with millions of dollars.
>>705144919 You do understand the concept behind a billionaire, right? They don't have $1B federal reserve notes hidden under their masters that they're refusing to spend. In fact their liquid assets are far far below their net worth.
Billionaires worth is comprised mainly of real estate, stock holdings, and business ownership worth. I mean, seriously, how can you accuse some one who runs a goddam company out not contributing to the economy? That's just an asinine assertion.
>>705145169 Yeah I figured, I've been reading a lot about that and I think the only way to truly become tax-exempt is pretty much through corruption. But you have to have A LOOOOOT of money to play that game.
>>705144908 If the government is just going to take everything then there's no incentive. If I can't save up extra money to pay for my kids' college in case I die before they get there - because the government will steal 70% of it - then fuck it, I won't save any and the government wont be able to take any. Sounds like a great economic plan for the nation doesn't it?
Add a certain percentage rate of taxation, it doesn't make sense to work anymore. It de-incentivizes entrepreneurship and risk taking, which are the exact fucking things that have made this country great in the past.
>>705145305 >Billionaires worth is comprised mainly of real estate, stock holdings, and business ownership worth. No, it isn't. This is true for most multi-millionaires, but when you start getting into the billionaire level, the majority of that wealth is stashed in various tax havens where it just sits doing nothing.
>running companies contributes to the economy It does, but, again, no one deserves billions of dollars in personal assets simply for being at the top of the management chain. And their kids likely did nothing to contribute to that company, therefore those kids deserve none of its profits.
>>705145941 >It does, but, again, no one deserves billions of dollars in personal assets simply for being at the top of the management chain. And their kids likely did nothing to contribute to that company, therefore those kids deserve none of its profits
This is entirely subjective, and is not basis for any legislation whatsoever.
>>705145810 >spoiled trust fund cunts They inherit those empires, and blow all the money. Then their kids are only moderately wealthy. Then their kids are back to the middle class.
90% of families worth over $3 million lose that wealth after the 3rd generation. So the problem of trust fund kids maintaining wealth? It's not a fucking problem. All that money goes back to the economy, rather than to bolster politicians.
I think Obama has been a damn good president overall, but one of the stupidest things ever said was: "if you have a business, you didn't build that" The Republican think like this too. They think we need them and not the other way around, so they feel entitled to just take what we, in the private industry, build, create, and earn. With no regard to the risk that we take when we create a business. It's a huge risk guys
>>705139138 oh boohoo, my parents were poor and didn't leave me anything so no one deserves to inherit their families wealth. God why are people such petty crybabies? Why do you all want the government to force you into poverty? If you want money go and work for it. Then maybe you might be able to leave your kids something. Unless you would rather give your life's work to the government.
>>705145941 >but when you start getting into the billionaire level, the majority of that wealth is stashed in various tax havens where it just sits doing nothing >mfw billionaires are actually fucking dragons Bullshit. They buy companies, they invest widely, and they donate to philanthropic organizations to reduce taxes. Very little of it is liquid. Since you made the claim that billionaire simply hoard cash, prove it.
>no one deserves billions of dollars No one deserves anything by default. They fucking worked for it. Or sometimes inherited it (and will likely lose it within a generation or two). I don't give a fuck who you think about people deserving things; when it comes down to it, the government doesn't deserve to take it from them by force, does it?
>>705147139 So what do you actually think the government will take the money and distribute back to people like you? They will line their own pockets, all the while laughing their asses off at the useful idiots like you.
>>705147076 Right. It's not up to the government to decide who "deserves" the money that you worked for. Kind of the whole idea of capitalism. If I worked my whole life and took risks and created a business, and saved up money, and took risks and invested that money, because I want to hand it to my kids, then I deserve to be able to do that.
>>705138674 Gary Johnson: "A vote for me shows the two party system that you aren't falling for their crap anymore. I want to keep the government out if you wallet and out of your bedroom. Personal freedom and personal responsibility. Live free." Me: This guy makes sense and he's more sane and stable than Clinton or Trump... Gary Johnson: What is a leppo? Me: Still better than Clinton or Trump! Gary Johnson: I'm just glad no one was injured. Me: Still better than Trump or Clinton. Gary Johnson: Bleh blah blah Bleh Bleh blah Bleh. Me: STILL MORE QUALIFIED, REASONABLE, AND STABLE THAN CLINTON OR TRUMP.
>>705147329 Personally, I don't give a shit what the government does with it. At least they're doing SOMETHING with it. That's far better for the economy than all of that wealth sitting in some tax haven.
>>705147076 >I don't give a fuck who you think about people deserving things And I don't give a fuck that you think that some assholes should be allowed to spend their lives scamming people out of billions, stashing it in tax havens, and passing it on to future generations. Neither of our opinions holds any more weight than the other. Funny how democracy works, isn't it?
>>705148077 I'm not him, but I was just thinking how awesome this thread is because it's a good lively discussion and everybody's being pretty respectful and It hasn't devolved into a shit-slinging contest like 99.9% of /b/
>>705147578 you live in a large house with five roommates one is the only one with his name on the lease one day you decide to make bread, you buy your own ingredients, clean up after yourself and even throw a dolalr into the bill basket to cover the miniscule gas you used to cook it suddenly timmy comes over after you have cooked it and let it cool and grabs 3 of the five loafs of bread. >sorry anon but i think the others are going to want some bread too. > but its mine, ill probably wind up sharing it anyway but you cant just take it > to damn bad, he walks away with your food. next thing you know hes eaten most of it and handed half a slice each to your other roommates
>>705148191 >scamming people out of billions Let's see, top ways that people made their billions: >1. Technology (~25% of billionaires) >2. Real estate (~10% of billionaires) >3. Fashion/retail (~10% of billionaires) >4. Healthcare (~5% of billionaires) >5. Sports (~5% of billionaires)
How is this scamming people? You really are a bitter cunt, aren't you?
>>705138674 >aaaaaaaaaaaaannddd there goes Hillarys chances This "here's this ONE thing that will destroy clinton's campaign" thing is getting on my nerves. I don't care who wins; we're fucked either way, but you're retarded if you think something like this, or any of the other 100 "things that will ruin hillary" will change anything.
Whether the system is rigged or not is only a matter of degree. It's unlikely there is a single entity pulling the strings, but society has inertia. It keeps going the direction it's headed until something comes along and moves it. With the size of the population as large as it is, the inertia is huge; and with the amount of distracting bullshit for the average person to consume, few people act to change it, and those that do push on it from all directions, producing a net zero change.
>>705148480 Let's tweak that analogy a bit to make it at least somewhat fit this discussion. Let's say that I made a thousand loaves of bread. I could only ever hope to eat one of them myself before they go stale. Timmy could take 65% of those stale loaves after I die and I'd still have more than I know what to do with. I could take all of those loaves and open a bakery, actually contributing to the economy. Or I could try to freeze them for decades and hand them down to my kids. Obviously the majority of people would prefer the former.
>>705148480 A lot of people, through no fault of their own really, are not going to be able to stand understand this. because they haven't busted their asses working for a lot of years and built something of their own. When I was younger, I was guilty of feeling entitled. Sometimes this kind of understanding can only come with time. I'm not bashing anyone; I'm not bashing younger people. Sometimes, you just have to live it. You have to walk in those shoes.
>>705148885 Look at the top billionaires in tech. Gates, Jobs... both stole many of their ideas from Xerox and got away with it. Real estate? Trump has a long history of hiring subcontractors with no intention of ever paying them. Look at the other industries and you'll see more of the same.
>>705148480 the problem with your analogy is of its scale. To make the analogy correct, you'd need to have made 5,000,000 loaves of bread, and then timmy takes 3,000,000 after you died, and shared it with a million people, and your kids get 2,000,000 loaves for themselves.
>>705148403 >What inherent individual rights do you think are being ignored here? Jesus, any time you allow the mob to rule (i.e., majority vote takes all) you end up overturning individual rights. If you set up a system that allows voters to tax any minority group at any rate they choose, you fuck those minority groups. If we allow this type of voting to rule us, we can simply vote to repeal free speech for any "x' we want. Or repeal the 13th Amendment. Whatever we want. This is why the SCOTUS can overturn laws-- our constitution has the final fucking say in every case. So, no, a law passed by a representative legislature is not necessarily legal if it violates the constitution.
>Hell, what makes you think inherent individual rights even exist? I read the constitution, in grade school, and many times since. If you're trying to be philosophical about it... stop, you're a faggot for even trying. This thread is not about philosophy. Legally speaking, the constitution guarantees individual rights, and if you don't buy into that, go be a faggot in some country that doesn't guarantee any rights.
>>705149332 Fine, be a jaded fucktard. Xerox patented shit that has no reason to be patented. Same with every other tech company. Patent law is a big business, and that's the one to be jaded about... even the courts are getting sick of it. If Trump screwed people over, they can sue him... some have, and won. Some were full of shit and lost.
You just like to cry about everything. According to you, every industry is crooked, every business is corrupt. Well, go live in fucking Africa then. There's basically no business, no industry, and no law there. Go there and get raped by some bigass militant niggers. Or live in the comfort and stability that capitalism has created. You have a fucking choice.
I don't know the exact figures but the estate tax has always capped out incredibly high. It's why people do estate planning.
I When I was taking tax accounting in school it would increase yearly and then reset to 0 for a year and start over. I imagine it still does the same thing. This was less than a decade ago that I studied it.
>>705138924 Hate to break your perspective but the top .5% are not actually that wealthy. I'm a relatively small time property developer and I'm pretty much in that bracket. There's no way I can afford to just "leave" the country or "hide my money" overseas. It's all tied up in property that, surprisingly enough, is quite hard to hide overseas.
The top 1% aren't that well off. The top 0.001% are though, and they don't give two shits about the law.
>>705140435 Actually that's not how that works. Estate taxes apply to personally owned assets and liquidity. So if this hypothetical "business" was never incorporated as an LLC or corporation, and the materials were owned personally, then yes, this would be taxable.
But for instance, take your average small size family farm. There are no examples in my county, and few in the state, of successful unincorporated (ie not legally a business) farms. None. The business, when the primary owner dies, is transferred according to the will and is not subject to estate tax. An unincorporated farm is the situation you're describing, which as I've already covered basically doesn't exist.
You see the whole myth of "estate tax is bad" is perpetuated by wealthy families and their trust fund babies. The real economic crime is that an ungodly amount of money is tied up this way and isn't being used to the benefit of the economy. If that money were severely taxed, this monetary drain can be plugged and the money can be put to work again.
Strictly speaking, the rich investing a lot of money is good. If they simply make all the money they think they need and set it in a vault somewhere where it isn't invested it takes money out of the market (which is bad)
Really, the issue is that they are allowed to make absolutely retarded investments made to earn a shitload of money in really unstable ways and then are bailed out when they fail (see: subprime housing loans and the market crash). This negates the good that investment does by fundamentally breaking down one of the only things that makes capitalism work, e.i. that we allow people to fail. The theory of capitalism suggests that by not bailing the rich idiots out that money should either: A. Make smart people who actually understand the market rich B. Make the smart people who are already rich even richer. Both of these outcomes are better.
>>705139138 Death tax is taxing money that has already been taxed. There is no service being exchanged only money, money that the family can the go spend on luxuries which will inject money into the economy... Instead the libtards would rather take the money away from people that are going to help the economy and give it to niggers that are going to take pictures with it and blow it on drugs. You know what the Boston tea party was for? a 3% tax only on TEA!!! Now the government is trying to take away 60,70,even 80% of your income because it's you "Fair share". Oh i have an idea, lets punish the people that are helping the countries economy and give their money to the niggers... which as stated before will spend it on drugs and not pay any taxes on it.
>>705151850 ISIS grew to prominence in recent years. Fact. Pogs have not come back into style. Fact. (in case you hadn't figured out, this does not make an argument (correlation does not imply causation)
There are actually problems with how this country handles investment and what's going on with the middle class.
Investment is not directly killing the middle class.
I say again: Investment is not directly killing the middle class and only an idiot would think that it was
>>705150591 it was something only the really wealthy needed to concern themselves over but she wants to make it effect all just like inheritance you can leave cumulatively something like 3 million over your family history in money assets(so if you left 100k to kid then he leaves 500k to his kids and so on) before being taxed which most dont get affected but now she and others want them to be affected yet people dont realize it and blindly support her
>>705152299 >Instead the libtards would rather take the money away from people that are going to help the economy and give it to niggers that are going to take pictures with it and blow it on drugs. If you give money a rich person, he puts into his bank account or an investment. Despite what free markets dummies will tell you, he most likely won't start a new business or create jobs. He will invest it in something safe, or put it in the bank, and sit on it. This doesn't help the economy, it actually hurts it.
Now lets consider what happens if you give money to a nigger. They spend that money on food, housing, drugs, and it gets circulated into the economy. It gets spent on products.
The nigger is what creates job. Not the businessman. This trickle down economic theory is garbage and I'm tired of hearing people still try to argue it. HISTORY HAS PROVED YOU GUYS WRONG, STOP SAYING THE SAME SHIT
>>705139138 >Its meant to keep spoiled trust fund cunts from inheriting empires they didn't work for why is this a thing? half of the meaning of life is building wealth and connections that can be passed onto your progeny
>>705153323 Because the rich man has rigged the economy by buying politicians. He broke the fair playing field, and has strayed from Capitalism into the world of Crony Capitalism. That is why we need to fix the rules, because they broke them. Yes, we have the right to change those rules. Yes, I think it is moral to raise taxes on people earning millions a year
>>705152807 >If you give money a rich person, he puts into his bank account or an investment. That's fine. Banks invest money. So all the money is invested in the end. Investments are primarily based on stock shares in a company, which ultimately is supporting businesses, which grows the economy. That guy that has loads of money is basically responsible for the growth we see.
>He will invest it in something safe, or put it in the bank, and sit on it. Invest it in diverse areas, which is inherently safe, or the bank will do the same. But no one sits on money, except a complete retard.
>This doesn't help the economy, it actually hurts it. >investment hurts the economy >mfw Found the guy that doesn't understand basic economics!
>Now lets consider what happens if you give money to a nigger. >spends it on drugs >illegal drugs grow our economy? >The nigger is what creates job. Not the businessman. Retard. Besides all that, they spend money primarily on products made elsewhere. Niggers do not help out economy, overall. They hurt it.
> trickle down economic theory is garbage It is. But that doesn't mean that capitalism doesn't work, you giant cuntwaffle. That was one subset of capitalism... the system which has been more successful at raising the standard of living more than any other economic system, ever. If you don't like it, comrade, there are places for you to go.
>>705153322 >bank reduces rates because they have more money to lend hahahahahhaahahahhahahahaah good jokes friend >company has more money to grow making more job opportunity Making risky investments in new companies is good, I'm not saying anything bad about that. I'm speaking more on investments in established corporations, and illegal schemes that result in the taxpayer bailing them out when they fail
>>705152017 Alright, here we go on why money should ideally be redistributed to the middle class:
Let's assume there are three classes: poor, middle, and rich. Here's what happens with their money:
>Poor Don't have enough money to afford luxuries. May or may not be employed in a productive way Extract money from the government to support themselves
It should be fairly obvious that having poor people is bad. I don't want to suggest cutting off welfare or anything because that gives you desperate people without much to lose, this is something you really don't want.
>Rich Can afford expensive luxuries Don't require government support and may skip out on government programs such as public schools Have access to two forms of investment not normally available to the middle class
Ignore the luxuries for a second. Expensive luxuries don't necessarily employ more people or include more actual value-added than cheaper luxuries, meaning that they don't necessarily help any more people than those cheap luxuries. Rich people might easily argue that since they don't need government programs they shouldn't pay for them, neglecting the fact that those programs do two important things: 1. Keep the poor from rioting 2. Give the middle class a boost that can help them become well educated employees. Now, a word on investment: The rich can afford to do two things other investors cannot: 1. Tie up huge amounts of money in very slow growing funds (this isn't necessarily bad but it doesn't help anyone) 2. Investing in very risky markets (because they can afford to lose the money). This is actually fine (as I've mentioned before) unless someone comes up with the HORRIBLE idea of bailing these people out. Idiots losing money is part of how capitalism works and redistributing it back to idiots isn't a good idea since there is nothing the rich do that the middle class working in concert (multiple investors making smart investments) can't do.
>own family farm >farm land technically worth millions on paper >farm brings in modest income as a farm >parents die >65% estate tax >farm has to be sold to pay the tax bill >farm bought by big corporation or turned into a new series of townhomes, gas stations and chain restaurants >thanks Hillary
>>705153322 >reaganomics it doesn't trickle down. also that isn't how stock works. that rich guy is buying stock from another rich guy, not putting it into the company. If companies could just keep issuing stocks then the ones they already sold would drop in value each time they issued new stocks. A stock is a percentage share of ownership of the company and entitles you to a like percentage of the profits the company earns. If the company does well, then the dividend (your percent of the profit) goes up and a share of that stock is then worth more because it will bring a higher dividend.
>>705154280 Ok, then you don't really understand the basic differences between trickle down BS and the rest of capitalism. Because you're equating what >>705152299 said with trickle down economics. When it's just basic capitalism.
And you keep advocating for forced reallocation of wealth, which is a pretty communist ideal. Taxing the rich, just for having money, and giving it to a bunch of niggers is pretty goddamn anti-capitalist.
>>705153322 >Or they don't, because they don't have to and they are a profit based venture The better move for the bank is to keep the rates up and give riskier loans in the hope that they can still get their money back and maybe a good bit more if they can keep people on the hook for a while
Credit unions, made to serve their members, are the ones who might actually have a reason to lower their rates
>Or they could use the money to move abroad and shut down all jobs in this country. I'm not saying they WILL, I'm just saying that investing is not an inherently good thing and anyone who tells you that it is is a moron.
Seriously, trickle down economics don't work and more money is not necessarily good money (in fact, without regulation, it's almost always the opposite)
>>705154210 If that's true, then how is giving the very same corrupt government more money and more power the answer? Entrusting the government to fix the problems created by the government is like a crazy man trying to think himself sane.
>>705154677 I disagree. And the general state of the economy, most of the time, supports me. Not you. Look at economic growth under our current system over the last hundred years.
I'm not saying there isn't completely broken sectors of the investment economy; there are. And they should be heavily regulated to prevent people from fucking the world for a few more percent a year. But saying that the majority of the 0.01% are doing this is absurd and unfounded. Most people want stability and steady growth. Most of the wealthy make more money overall under these conditions, because they own businesses that benefit from stability. Just because a few fucktards ruin it for everyone else does not mean that the wealthy are generally evil. It means we should be more inclined to imprison those fucktards.
>>705154812 >Instead the libtards would rather take the money away from people that are going to help the economy and give it to niggers that are going to take pictures with it and blow it on drugs And I never said that we should tax the rich and give money to niggers. You really are the master of the strawman. I simply said that it's better for the economy to give money to nigger than a rich man, a statement I stand by. Are you going to dispute that?
>>705154967 Well we have to trust the government at some point. I'm not saying we give them more power, I'm saying we give them less power by taking money out of politics. Ban political donations and fund elections publically
>>705155453 First, you're using greentext that is a quote from someone else.
Second, >And I never said that we should tax the rich and give money to niggers. "Now lets consider what happens if you give money to a nigger. They spend that money on food, housing, drugs, and it gets circulated into the economy. It gets spent on products."
Sure sounds like you're advocating exactly that. It's not a strawman if you make an argument for something, but hur dur didn't really mean it. It's you being retarded and arguing a point you don't agree with. You said, in essence, that it's better to take money from a rich businessman and give it to niggers. It's hard to fucking misunderstand that.
>I simply said that it's better for the economy to give money to nigger than a rich man, a statement I stand by. Are you going to dispute that?
So it's better to do a thing, but you don't advocate doing that thing. Got it. You're retarded. And you don't understand the basics of the situation you're talking about, let alone subtleties of economics. It is in no way better, economically, to tax the rich and hand out those taxes to niggers. The net result will always be negative on the economy. Every time.
>>705156610 >It's not a strawman if you make an argument for something, but hur dur didn't really mean it I said if your going to give money to someone, you are better off giving it to a nigger. That's what I said, and it's what I argued, because I also phrased it as "if you give money to a rich person".
Once again, a totally inaccurate strawman.
>So it's better to do a thing, but you don't advocate doing that thing. Got it. You're retarded
You're entire premise is a straw man, and your argument falls apart without a base to stand on
>>705157226 >if you give money to a rich person No one "gives" money to a rich man. This entire thread is about either taking money from a rich man, or letting him keep the money he has. So your premise is complete shit to begin with. The only way it fit into this thread is if we equate "giving money to a rich person" with "letting him keep his money." So people gave you the benefit of the doubt there, and assumed you were using a "businessman with x dollars vs a nigger with x dollars" situation.
If you're really just bringing up BS hypothetical situations, like actually giving money to a rich person, we can all just disregard your original premise as bullshit from the start. Not to mention the fact that any investor with x amount of dollars will always grow the economy by more than a nigger with x amount of dollars. Every fucking time. So even the distinction between your bs hypothetical and what it was assumed you meant is meaningless... it doesn't change the resulting argument and result at all.
>>705158001 You earn money in your lifetime, and how much you have directly reflects how much you earned. You're children start with nothing because they haven't earned anything, but if they have merit they will earn it
>>705158299 Yeah! Fuck passing on a business to a completely capable family member! Even if that family member grew that business from 3 people in a garage to 150 people in three locations. Give it to the government instead, they'll run it better and it will be more fair!
>>705158299 But if the government takes everything how are people earning what they're actually worth? They're earning what the government says they're worth because your system necessarily requires government owned production in all fields.
>>705158242 Here's the post in question, capitalized for emphasis:
IF YOU GIVE MONEY TO A RICH PERSON, he puts into his bank account or an investment. Despite what free markets dummies will tell you, he most likely won't start a new business or create jobs. He will invest it in something safe, or put it in the bank, and sit on it. This doesn't help the economy, it actually hurts it.
Now lets consider what happens IF YOU GIVE MONEY TO A NIGGER. They spend that money on food, housing, drugs, and it gets circulated into the economy. It gets spent on products.
The nigger is what creates job. Not the businessman. This trickle down economic theory is garbage and I'm tired of hearing people still try to argue it. HISTORY HAS PROVED YOU GUYS WRONG, STOP SAYING THE SAME SHIT
It's been a hypothetical situation from the start you dummy, that's why I keep saying you are strawmanning the shit out of me
>>705158647 It doesn't matter who it's for. I can't help that you're a faggot who thinks laws are more or less just based on how much money a person has.
And when you say shit like, who cares, they are super rich! When there are no more super rich left in the US, who do you think will be paying next? it's like Bernie's economics... did he ever think he'd be able to charge anyone 80% taxes? No. So when he banks on it, and it falls through, he has to raise taxes on everyone else to cover the expenses he planned for.
That is exactly what will happen with Hillary's plan. She will bank on everyone with huge estates to pay the tax. They will find loopholes. Then everyone else is fucked.
>>705159063 lmao liberals really do believe that the government is God. i thought it was just a meme. instead of getting their direction and comfort from a spiritual connection with a higher power, they just put their faith in Uncle Sam. It's amazing.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.