Why are right wingers such big cucks for the billionaire class

>>127803030
i think this video will explain how America supports terrorism.
link related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE3jbbhB0eA

>>127803030
You should probably ask that question somewhere else becasue people here seem to be rarely in favor of the elites.

You're right!
Everyone paying more taxes to the government will surely make all of us wealthy...

ITT retards who will defend this.

>>127803799
With that ridiculous strawman the only retard here is you.

>>127803799
At least governments are somewhat accountable to the people, corporations are unaccountable to nobody. They basically control our governments nowadays. Read up on the Business Roundtable and DAVOS. These are the people running the world. Not the people.

We must take back control before its too late.

Also we're not talking about increasing taxes on the middle class we're talking about the very elite of society. You're not going to be affected you pathetic boot licking kike.

>>127803667
yer I've noticed it too. What's funny is that they've deluded themselves into believing they are anti-establishment simply because they hate refugees. They don't understand the actual reasons why we have a refugee crisis in the first place and it's all got to do with multinationals.

They are retards on /pol/ who believe in free trade and giving corportations the power to do whatever they like and they wonder why we have a large immigration problem of low skilled people. Surely it's not because corporations benefit from the increased demand for their products and surely large corporations don't benefit from the reduced wages.

>>127803030
Despite all their problems they still provide jobs for a massive amount of people.
If you tax them too much they take those jobs elsewhere. Corporations don't actually care about people, they just want to make money. You can't just tax people in power to get what you want. They'll just use that power to screw everyone below them.

>>127804265
HERE IS AN ECONOMICS LESSON

GOVERNMENTS NEVER INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY

NEVER

ITS ALWAYS THE PRIVATE SECTOR

GOVERNMENTS MAKE ATOM BOMBS, BIO WEAPONS AND SHITSKIN TERRORISTS

IF IT WASN'T FOR THE GOVERNMENT WE WOULD HAVE HAD THE INTERNET IN 1700 AND BEEN ON MARS BY NOW

ALL TAXATION IS THEFT, ALL OF IT

>>127803030
>those feels when trickle down is not even an economic theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZPDpk8NA-g

>>127804570
Can't tell if this is serious or a shitpost.

>>127804470
No, they don't. They prevent jobs from being done for anyone else's interests.
Maybe jobs shouldn't be held hostage by corporations.
>leaf
Oh, just projecting your kink onto society. Carry on, then.

If the left had their way they would just piss away the money on things like more money for worthless education programs.

So I don't really see how taxing the rich more would help the middle class unless they gave more direct tax cuts to the middle class.

>>127803030

most of right wings larp as billionares, including dwellers of /pol/. im serious

File: chart-wages-vs-productivity-1024x5811.png (155KB, 1024x581px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1024x581px

>>127804570
And what fucking good is increased productivity if we never see the benefits from it? In other words, why shouldn't the people just kill all the managers and CEOs?

File: POTUS laughs at you.jpg (48KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 650x366px

>>127803030
THIS BUTTHURT LIBERAL!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

YOUR TEARS ARE SO DELICIOUS AMERIBOO!

KYS FAGGOT!

>>127804807
really entices you to consider

>>127804570
SAGE

>>127804957
Actually, if you put liberals into wood chippers, you won't have that problem at all. What you will have is an inability to pretend that your luck is an essential virtue. Calvinism BTFO

File: third position.png (305KB, 2550x3300px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 2550x3300px

>>127803030
Because the left/right dichotomy is a scam designed to pit the masses against one another. What we need is a third way.

>>127803030

>stop giving tax breaks and incentives to corporations
>corporations stop hiring
>corporations start letting people go
>corporations start cutting full-time employees to part-time and stop offering health insurance and benefits to those who lose hours
>corporations start making people who were employees become "independent contractors" so that they don't have to pay direct taxes on them or offer any perks/benefits/etc. (as happened to a friend who works for Harley-Davidson, came on as a contractor, was hired as an employee, then cuts came again and he was told "Well, you can keep your job, but you have to go back to being an independent contractor again and lose all your benefits in the process").

ITT: Liberals and commies who are far too stupid to understand the simple concept of "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". Corporations aren't dumb enough to take the hit themselves and just PAY MUH HIGHER TAXES, the employees will be the ones to get buggered EVERY.SINGLE.TIME. And then, the same people who voted for costing themselves and others their previously decent employment all collectively wonder "GEE HOW DID THIS EVER HAPPEN?!?!" like a bunch of fucking dolts.

Here's the thing, lads - it's a flawed system, but attempting childish "fixes" that will buttfuck the working man even more are NOT the solution. Stop believing your retarded professors who make $150-250k/year who are telling you that they understand the plight of the common man and how to right the wrongs of capitalism, they're all just fucking retards pretending to have a clue.

File: feb27e6650fe0d0d7253d8d4450c852e.jpg (1MB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1600px

>>127803799
Bump

Fuck marxism

Youll be eating your own kids out of starvation if Isis britboicucks don't blow you all up first.

/pol/ would take a dick in the ass from the Sam Walton and then thank him for it after

>>127805046
>And what fucking good is increased productivity if we never see the benefits from it?

WHA WHA LET ME TYPE MY ANTI-CAPITALIST SCREED ON MY COMPUTER INVENTED SOLEY BY CAPITALISTS KILL THE CEOS WHAT DID JEFF BEZOS EVER EVENT FUCKING NOTHING WHA WHA CHE GUEVARA

>>127803030
Isnt high taxes just trickle down by another means?
Checkmate chinky eyes

>>127803030
Why do left-wingers claim to be against the system when every part of the system supports them?

>>127803030
>good goy trickle down works! we will all be rich
>good goy capitalists are very bad, our goverment will protect you, they know best

This is a fight between ((big business)) vs ((politicians)), not the plebs, they are fucked regardless.

>>127804570
military invented: cpu, gps
gov invented: internet, simcard
no private investors will dump moneys on research and tecnology that is high risk only public moneys bc even if fail it still be money mulitplier: good for economy.

>>127805287
>muh iphone
>muh daddy
We have computers now, and will still have computers after all the executives have been killed.

>>127805152
>What you will have is an inability to pretend that your luck is an essential virtue. Calvinism BTFO

what the fuck? do you even know what Calvinism is?

>>127804450
The problem with globalism is that the money is flying around from tax haven to tax haven. It's impossible to pin down when the money flow is so free.

>What's funny is that they've deluded themselves into believing they are anti-establishment simply because they hate refugees.
That's completely false. Utterly. Just got here from Reddit?

/pol/ is overwhelmingly Libertarian or NatSoc.

Libertarians hate the megacorps because they've seize power through subsidies and kept it through bailouts.

NatSocs hate corporations because of their internationalist, semitic, and morally decadent influences.

Nobody here likes Google, Faceberg, AIG, what have you.

>>127805499
Yes, it's a way for the rich to pretend that God blessed them with their ill-gotten gains.

>>127805015
Capitalism has proven over and over again to be superior and i just don't like that abortions immigrants or refugees.

Most right wingers want to just drink beer ,shoot guns maybe, work for a living, and raise a family.

>>127805530
This. is true.

>>127805241
You don't have to be a commie to realize that multinationals and bankers are your mortal enemy. Why do you think that large part of your manufacturing base was outsourced and why are you being flooded with cheap labour from all over the world?

Because the day I become a billionaire I want all the fucking power and perks I deserve

>>127803030
The only people I encounter here that are pro globalism are the shills that come to troll /pol/

>>127805621
Not really, it's just proven itself a more lethal meme. Not exactly pro-life is it.
>>127805786
Which is exactly what we tell you you deserve, little bitch. You don't decide. WE DO.

>>127805407
>military invented: cpu, gps
>gov invented: internet, simcard

NO THEY DIDN'T FUCKING PRIVATE SECTOR CONTRACTORS INVENTED THAT SHIT

EVER MET A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE = NIGGERS

EVER MET A MILITARY PERSON = NIGGERS/WHITE TRASH

FUCKING WE WOULD HAVE HAD CPUS IN THE 1700s BUT NO GOVERNMENT HAD TO GENOCIDE EVERYONE ALL THE TIME FOREVER FUCKING IRAQ A MILLION DEAD , TEN THOUSAND FUTURE RESEARCHERS DEAD, OPPORTUNITY COSTS WHATS THAT MUH GOVERNMENT FUNDED RESEARCH

>>127804470
>Despite all their problems they still provide jobs for a massive amount of people.
Not because they care for the society or the nation you retard. They provide jobs out of desperation. As soon as they have the opportunity to automate or offshore they do so because it increases profit. Sure it's going to hurt the society and all those people dependent on them for survival but who fucking cares.

Corporations don't care about the well being of the nation. They are internationalist globalist hierarchical institutions hell bent on making profit by any means necessary. Multinationals are literally doing what you accuse kikes of doing which is to subvert.


>If you tax them too much they take those jobs elsewhere. Corporations don't actually care about people, they just want to make money.
Yes which is why we need to punish them if they do. Governments have the power right now to seize Google and Facebook if they please. They have the power to nationalize the banks. Remember, these corporations live under our mercy yet they are abusing their power.

What we need is National Socialism. We need to nationalize a lot of these corporations and make them government controlled and owned. This way they serve the people, the nation and society at large instead of a small number of kike shareholders.

>>127805579
>Yes, it's a way for the rich to pretend that God blessed them with their ill-gotten gains.

no it isn't
>For when Scripture enjoins us to lay aside private regard to ourselves, it not only
divests our minds of an excessive longing for wealth, or power, or human favour, but eradicates all ambition and thirst for worldly glory, and other more secret pests.
>Jean Calvin - The Institutes of the Christian Religion

do you even know what theology is?

>>127804570
>IF IT WASN'T FOR THE GOVERNMENT WE WOULD HAVE HAD THE INTERNET IN 1700
THE INTERNET WAS CREATED IN THE DEFENSE SECTOR (PUBLIC) USING TAX PAYER MONEY. ALL THE INNOVATIONS ARE MADE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR BEFORE CORPORATIONS TAKE THE TECHNOLOGY AND MAKE A PROFIT OF IT. YOU FUCKING BABOON. READ A FUCKING BOOK.

>In 1973, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated a research program to investigate techniques and technologies for interlinking packet networks of various kinds. The objective was to develop communication protocols which would allow networked computers to communicate transparently across multiple, linked packet networks.
http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-internet/history-internet/brief-history-internet-related-networks

>>127803030
kill yourself shill rat

>>127805966
With tax payer money, genius.

File: 8k0p55b.jpg (345KB, 1024x734px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1024x734px

>>127805921
Its a cold world. One day i hope for peace for my people.

>>127805530
Not from my experience. Most people here shill for corporations and unbridled capitalism.

>>127803799
See komrade, if you give the government your money, you can get 30% of it back in the form of welfare! Is it not a great system of economics?

>>127804450
>Governments are somewhat accountable to the people
>Corporations are unaccountable to nobody. They basically control our government.
Get off your proxy leaf.

>>127803030

>tax cuts are a redistribution of wealth

>expect companies to grow or compete when heavily taxed/punished in a global market

nice try ha-joon gook

how about instead of taxing the rich more, we tax ourselves less.

File: DachauTrain2.jpg (71KB, 504x375px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 504x375px

>>127806127
HAHA YEAH GOVERNMENT SO GREAT AT INVENTING THINGS LOOK AT THIS TRAIN FULL OF FUCKING INTERNETS THE GOVERNMENT INVENTED FUCKING THE PRIVATE SECTOR COULD NEVER CREATE PRODUCTIVITY LIKE THIS THANK GOD FOR THE ENLIGHTENED GOVERNMENTS

>>127803030

OP, when's the last time you got a job from a poor person?

OH... you haven't? That's why trickle-down economics works.

/thread

They're not. That's why Obama and Bill Clinton won 2 elections each (of course, they turned out to be globalist shills as well), and that's why Trump won last year.

>>127806466
>Sage go in option

>>127806597

Businesses and jobs existed before trickle down economics, dummy.

>>127806466
Those statements are not contradictory though. Yes the corporations have huge power and influence over our government but we have the power to change that.

The government has the power right now to nationalize banks and cease the assets of globalist corporations. If we so choose. But it would require an overhaul of the current system.

>>127806597
Costumers are the one who really creates the jobs you dingus, "business men" are just a middleman leech

>>127805768

I never said multinationals were the ultimate be-all-end-all of perfection, but what I'm saying is this:

If you decide to start pummeling corporations with high taxes, it's the EMPLOYEES who are going to suffer the biggest consequences and NOT the upper level ownership or the rich investors.

History has proven a million times over that every time you try to fuck with the system, the system takes it out on the lowest level of those who work for it. Sure, you CAN tax these corporations more, and they're going to cut staff, hours, benefits and a lot more while the execs still get richer and don't suffer one bit.

Now, if you can find a way to actually change it so that the employees don't all get ass raped when you tax corporations more, I'd love to hear it, but that's going to require some pretty heavy fucking statism to make that happen, and that seems contradictory to what most here want.

It's a riddle with no easy answer.

>>127803030
Didn't know sex is zero guy was an economist.

>>127806470
>let the corps do whatever they want
Fuck off kike.

We're coming for you.

NatSoc will seize all your assets and nationalize your corporations to serve the interests of the people and the nation.

You capitalist kikes deserve a bullet.

>>127806717

Are you really this retarded? Read what I said, then read what you said again. Come back and tell us how you're not a fucking idiot.

>>127806750

Where does the customer get his money from, dingus? Moon fairies?

>>127807138
>when's the last time you got a job from a poor person?

This is total non argument. If this is your reasoning for why trickle down economics is good/necessary/effective, then you're fucking insane.

>>127803030
The ultra wealthy don't pay any taxes ever no matter what the "rate" is.

The "rich" people we're taxing are the upper-middle class who should be our biggest allies - and should be taxed less.

Then actually enforce anti-corruption laws.

>>127807138
>Where does the customer get his money from

From his own labor! ((money)) is confusing you, think it with, apples.

We work for the apples, we get apples. And then suddenly, some faggot comes and claims the apple trees are theirs, he passes you some paper called "good goy points" after you work hard in the apple trees, the good goy points are for buying apples, as its the own good in the world.

But guess what, you get less apples than for what you worked for, a little percentage less, because the faggot who "owns" the farm haves to take his cut. If you defend that you're a bootlicker faggot.

>>127807478

Actually it's a perfectly sound argument that blows your juvenile worldview all to shit. You have no fucking idea how to refute it (because you can't) so that's you're only rebuttal: "T..That's not an argument!!"

Just shut the fuck up.

>>127807756

How old are you?

Trickle down economics has NEVER worked. Rich people were rich before it. Business owners provided jobs before it. All it does is serve to make the rich richer. That's why with trickle down economics we went into periods of massive debt and an eventual economic crash.

>>127807686

Oh... so moon fairies are paying you for labor? Or is it someone/a pool of someones who have more money than you?

Don't think too hard.

>>127807510

DING! DING! DING!

Based leaf actually gets it - if we can't REALLY punish the wealthiest because they ALWAYS have options to avoid taxation one way or another, let's at LEAST fucking stop thinking that taxing the middle class and upper middle class is the solution to the problem.

All it's fucking doing is creating more lower-class poorfags and nothing more. Perhaps, fellas, we could actually give BENEFITS to the middle class/upper middle class and see how that changes things?

Being in the upper middle area (for my region, if I were in NYC I'd probably be considered poor) and a small business owner who employs a half dozen people, I know the fucking squeeze of being taxed to fucking death far too well. It's what has kept me from being able to budget additional hires I could really use right now, but alas, retarded leftists still think that I owe more money and want to bleed me out so their fee-fees can be comfy, but little do these faggots know that all their shit they want to do to get revenge on the wealthy only makes it hard on people like myself, and doesn't affect the 1% one fucking bit.

>>127806788
>It's a riddle with no easy answer.

I certainly agree that taxation alone won't solve anything as long as corporations hold an immense power over the government. And taxing them more is only an icing on the cake, I'd probably be content with only executives getting a substantial tax raise. Breaking them into smaller parts is necessary imo. That way they'll have less bargaining power and we would avoid too big too fail situations. Stamping out their involment with politics would be also high on the list of fixes - goldman sachs execs getting important governemnt positions seems like shady situation.

>>127803030
>liberals didn't love Steve Jobs
>liberals don't love Mark Zuckerburg
C'mon now.

>>127807950

Rich guy(s) own big bank
Big banks loan money to smaller banks
Farmer gets loan from small bank
Farmer hires help
You are the help

Short of putting this in crayon, I don't know how to make it any fucking simpler for you. That is trickle down.

>>127808078
Are you genuinely retarded? I could go a sell an object directly to a consumer that I created, retaining the full value of my labor. The middleman that pays me and then the sells to the costumer, is a leech and needs to erradicated, hopefully technology will help us in doing so.

File: 1111.png (100KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 900x600px

>>127807686
>But guess what, you get less apples than for what you worked for, a little percentage less, because the faggot who "owns" the farm haves to take his cut. If you defend that you're a bootlicker faggot.
ah yes, the claim of surplus "theft"
never proven and inconsistently applied, bootlicker faggot indeed

>>127808148
Their goal is indeed to eliminate the middle and upper-middle class entirely, as they represent the biggest threat to the ultra wealthy who are trying to consolidate power.

That's not to say that many of this remaining class are still under the delusion that they are somehow part of the ultra wealthy, but they are not, and many of them are figuring it out - as are we.

We need to stop taxing the shit out of everything, and actually enforce our existing anti-corruption, anti money laundering, anti tax evasion, etc. laws on the ultra wealthy and their agents.

>>127808457

You selling directly to the consumer makes YOU the businessman you assclown.

Jesus christ what the fuck are they teaching you kids in school these days?

File: 1482409433579.jpg (19KB, 460x269px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 460x269px

>>127803030
Yeah because /pol/ loves Mark Fuckerkike and George "Satan" Soros so much.

"Right wingers" are more than just neocon golems and libertardians you know.

File: 1495888842050.jpg (104KB, 1200x1167px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1200x1167px

>>127808457
>I could go a sell an object directly
yes, and you would be competing with others who have division of labor for that product in their business model
if they can do it cheaper, you lose

>>127808491
>inconsistently applied
What?

The feudal overlord that takes a cut of the peasents production because he claims to "own" the land and because he fucking cans, is not a thief?

>>127808341

No dummy, we're talking about the government TAX breaks of trickle down economics.

What you're describing is basic business (the way it's been since day one).

Trickle down economics refers to massive tax cuts for the top few % of wealthy people. The theory is that by giving them more money, the the benefits will "trickle down" to the poor people.

Holy fucking shit, how the fuck do you not know this?

Tax cuts, or tax hikes will both benefit the rich regardless. You can't punish people who are rich, they're RICH. So maybe we should try cutting taxes so we can, you know, all get rich one day?

File: why_we_fight.png (91KB, 1488x476px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1488x476px

>>127803030
>tfw calling you out on your bullshit fallacy every single day, day in and day out.

>>127808803

Because the more money the "rich guy" has, the more he has to spend on shit - whether it be expanding his business or buying fucking lambos, an end consumer is going to benefit somewhere along the line. How the fuck do YOU not know this?

>>127808803
>Trickle down economics

"Trickle-down economics, or “trickle-down theory,” argues for income and capital gains tax breaks or other financial benefits to large businesses, investors and entrepreneurs in order to stimulate economic growth."

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trickledowntheory.asp

Christ bro, at least get off your training wheels before you come to /pol/

>>127808667
No, the business man is not working his factory himself. He just recieves the dividends in the mail, the share of the production of his workers he legally stole of course.

>>127808716

Ethical =/= Efficient

In reality, stealing to workers in the actual division of labor IS effective, but not ethical and its totally normal to be against it.

>>127809000
>Because the more money the "rich guy" has, the more he has to spend on shit - whether it be expanding his business or buying fucking lambos, an end consumer is going to benefit somewhere along the line.

So you admit that you were totally wrong on what you thought "trickle down economics" is. You had no idea that it was about tax breaks.

And no, trickle down economics doesn't work for that reason. The business owners end up just pocketing the cash. That's why the Bush tax cuts were such a fucking failure and they didn't create any job growth.

File: 1491882938704.jpg (114KB, 550x750px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 550x750px

>>127808747
>feudal overlord
what? say "I quit" to a feudal overlord and you would be flogged
nice attempt at an emotional appeal

>>127808803
>>127809000

Check my trips motherfucker. About the ONLY way nobody benefits from the rich asshole having more money to throw around is if he literally stuffs his mattress with cash and sits on it.

If he's spending it, he's benefiting the economy.

>>127809031
>investopedia
oh wow clearly an authority on things

>>127803030
trickle down is not a real thing. I argue to tax the rich less purely because i don't like the idea of the state taking nearly 50% of someones income, no matter how much they earn, i don't really argue for the economic benefits. Now less corporate taxation is completely different, lower corporate taxation is required to help maintain international competitiveness and to help attract capital investment.

>>127809224
>quitting just to starve

Yeah dude, its totally a fair deal, how idiots were the peasants, they could just have quitted!

>>127809176

Are you actually this fucking stupid. TAX BREAKS by their very definition PUT MORE MONEY IN HIS POCKET.

Holy FUCK dude. You have to be one of the dumbest motherfuckers I've come across on /pol/. I bet you can't even balance a fucking checkbook.

>>127809170
>Ethical =/= Efficient
>In reality, stealing to workers
still havent proved surplus theft to exist

>>127809296
>Check my trips motherfucker.

I don't give a shit about your internet numbers game, you underage.

>About the ONLY way nobody benefits from the rich asshole having more money to throw around is if he literally stuffs his mattress with cash and sits on it.
They move it offshore you fucking dummy.

>If he's spending it, he's benefiting the economy.
He doesn't give a shit about the economy, he's protecting his own interests.

File: 1495937091720.jpg (52KB, 417x602px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 417x602px

As we see here >>127803030 the newfag communist shows its ugly head. I hope that you gentlemen will tell him to go back to hell.

File: IMG_1373.jpg (36KB, 599x428px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 599x428px

>>127805530
Yes, almost everyone on the new right is suspicious on multinationals, it's one of the defining features of the movement. Marxism is obviously not the solution but free reign globalism has not produced enough net benefits to be declared even close to a success.

Governments can never be subservient to corporations in a just, virtuous, and successfully developing society.

>>127809469
>AX BREAKS by their very definition PUT MORE MONEY IN HIS POCKET.

Yeah, they put more money in the rich people's pocket. They then move that money into offshore investments.

What the fuck are you talking about? You might be one of the last people on earth who think trickle down economics is a good idea (which is weird because you didn't know what it was until I literally told you).

>>127808803
If you define "trickle down economics" economics as reducing taxes, that is/was not one of the major causes of the skyrocketing income inequality, and the decline of the American economy (for the people).

Other factors such as how these trade deals essentially incentivized outsourcing jobs, lax financial regulations/enforcement, simple criminal actions (mortgage fraud), the insane focus on short term investments and earnings-per-share to the detriment of everything else, allowing stock buybacks again, central bank policies, etc. etc. on and on.

The ultra wealthy are getting better at extracting every last dollar out of everyone. Do you really think a changing the top marginal income tax rate or increasing capital gains tax will stop them?

I've said it before and I'll say it again but America really needs to just ban corporate lobbying in congress outright. It wont fix EVERYTHING. But it'll definitely address the issue of multinationals having a huge amount of sway in what the government does. You gotta nip this problem in the bud, raising taxes wont really do much to harm them.

File: 1490741975633.png (227KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 600x600px

>>127809368
>reading comprehension
I just explained why its not feudalism and you are so bad at argument you just pretend your emotional appeal did anything and then tack on another that attacks a strawman statement I never made

>>127809516
>They move it offshore you fucking dummy.

Yeah you're right... every rich person in the USA moves ALL their money offshore and sits in their mansion with zero liquidity.

*facepalm*

>>127809667
>If you define "trickle down economics" economics as reducing taxes, that is/was not one of the major causes of the skyrocketing income inequality

I never said this. Income inequality was caused by cheap labor. But people are arguing that trickle down economics is some kind of government Godsend, when in fact it's practically economic cancer.

>>127803030

Jesus fucking Christ you have reached levels of cuckery not previously seen. This stupid chink said in 2014 that the economy of the U.S. and U.K. were in a giant bubble and about to crash.

Cut to 3 years later: Job growth in 2017 is above expectations and wages have grown ever since.

This zip gets his cock sucked his whole life by the banking elite and gets the most basic shit completely wrong. Right-wingers are red-pilled enough to see through his kike BS and vote the correct way.

>>127809667
I should add a big one, the institutionalization of tax-havens, where the ultra wealthy can easily and conveniently never pay taxes ever.

Heck Canada is a huge tax haven! We're basically a rogue money laundering tax haven dumping ground for the world's elites.

But you need to have gazillions of dollars to pay the right lawyers, otherwise you'll just be more meat for the grinder.

>>127809176
>The business owners end up just pocketing the cash.

Problem is, those who are leftists or economically retarded consider ALL business owners to be wicked, rich, greedy assholes screwing over the little guy.

I make just about twice what my warehouse manager does (who gets paid about 35% above average wage based on where we're located), and I carry about $125k in business debt and lease agreements that will fuck me over personally if anything goes south for my venture. Others work for me, but they take zero risk while I take all the burden of putting my financial future at risk while making the decisions that continue to keep things running so that people here have a fucking job to go to tomorrow.

Once retarded leftists and poorfag revenge-seekers can discern the difference between myself and some multi-millionaire Jew who makes his money via usury, the world will be a much better place, but sadly, leftists are brain dead and just want to tax and regulate the fuck out of everyone who has more than they do with zero regard for consequence.

It's why I left liberalism shortly after my business started - I realized that most everything I wished would happen was out of jealousy, envy and a desire for revenge on those who had more than I did, and once I was free of that mindset, life became bretty gud.

File: 1495808814018.jpg (183KB, 1024x688px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1024x688px

>>127803030
That's what National Socialism is for.

>>127809729
>Yeah you're right... every rich person in the USA moves ALL their money offshore and sits in their mansion with zero liquidity.

Wow, you're really hitting the bottom of the retard barrel.

I said they put their TAX BREAK MONEY offshore (and no not everyone does it, but if you're getting a sizeable tax break from the government, you're going to make sure it's not taxed later one).

Didn't you not even know what trickle down economics was 5 minutes ago? You literally thought it was just "rich guy opens business, hires workers, pays workers". Jesus Christ...

>>127805287
Most of the major technological advances leading to modern day computers were funded by the government and originally developed for military use

>>127809652

You're the fucking moron who thinks increasing taxes actually affects the rich in any meaningful way. They have armies of fucking lawyers and accountants exempting every fucking red cent they can.

Rich asshole makes $100 million in profit in 2016. He buys a $100 million building, writes it off as an expense, and then borrows against it for other ventures. You get ZERO tax dollars from him.

You know so little about economics it's fucking laughable.

Why are left wingers such big cucks for the billionaire class and large corporations who promote globalism because it increases their profits? See it works the other way as well.

>>127809992
>Problem is, those who are leftists or economically retarded consider ALL business owners to be wicked, rich, greedy assholes screwing over the little guy.

It's not about being wicked or evil. The government is giving these huge tax breaks to the rich ASSUMING that they will re-invest in the US economy, but there is no law that says they have to do that.

If a guys owns a chain of restaurants and gets a big tax break, what if he doesn't want to open another restaurant with it? He'll just pocket the cash.

>>127810117
Liberals are not left wing.

Most right wingers are just racist liberals.

>>127810087
>You're the fucking moron who thinks increasing taxes actually affects the rich in any meaningful way.

When did I ever say that? Post my quote. I'm not for raising taxes, but I'm also not for giving the rich MASSIVE tax cuts either.

>You know so little about economics it's fucking laughable.

YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS WAS UNTIL I TOLD YOU!

>>127803030
1: Trickle down economics doesn't exist.
2: Refusing to steal from people isn't "redistributing" shit.
3: If you understood how the federal budget system actually worked, you would be utterly humiliated to have ever spoken words as stupid as the ones you just typed.

You're a criminal. Criminals should be hanged.

>>127809803
So then stop beating around the bush and admit that the real solution is for the justice department to indict, convict and execute a bunch of bank CEO's for high crimes. The rest will fall in line pretty quick, Putin reminded us of that one.

Taxation is not the answer to every problem.

>>127809725
What emotional appeal, the position of negotation its rationally skewed against the worker.

>>127809488
>All wealth is created by labor
>Theft is when a transaction that forcefully makes you recieve less wealth than you what actually produced
>As wealth is created and not spawned with magic, if someone doesnt works but recieves wealth, its clearly stealing to someone else
>Shareholders/owners of a company don't work shit (CEO is another worker btw)
>Therefore capitalists steal to someone, specifically, the workers, thanks to the ownership rights enforced with force by the state

Literally prove me wrong.

>>127810375
>So then stop beating around the bush

What are talking about? When was I ever talking to you?

>Taxation is not the answer to every problem.
Are you a tard? When did I say it was?

>>127810352
He didn't know because "trickle down economics" isn't a real term. It was made up by Leftists so that they could lambast anyone who didn't want to steal more money.

There shouldn't even BE income tax.

>le trickle down doesn't work :^)))))))
Meanwhile in reality, the last 50 years have seen the largest increase in average quality of life in human history. I guess it's totally and 100% coincidence that the last 50 years have also seen liberalization of economic policy around the world.

>>127810019

You, sir, are the one who's confused on what "Trickle down economics" actually entails. All you can come up with is liberal buzzwords about "OMG tax breaks for the rich" and have absolutely no idea how that money is utilized.

Protip: Rich people want to be richer. They will use every fucking dollar they have to generate more wealth. Moving it all offshore into a pissant low interest account doesn't bode well for them. They don't look at it as gaining 2%/year, they look at it as losing 98%/yr. The vast majority of people who "move their money offshore" obtained it illegally in the first fucking place. THAT'S WHY THEY MOVE IT.

>>127808148
We could pursue international treaties that cut down on corporate tax loop holes rather than treaties that let corporations shift manufacturing to low wage areas. There are only so many places on earth the wealthy can try to move their assets to, they can't hide forever.

>>127810619
>He didn't know because "trickle down economics" isn't a real term. It was made up by Leftists so that they could lambast anyone who didn't want to steal more money.

Wow, now you're playing retarded semantics. "Trickle down economics" has been apart of our government/economic/tax vernacular for decades. Reagan built his own economic plan on it.

>>127805046
>burger flippers should get paid more because computers are really fucking good at crunching numbers

>>127810352
>YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS WAS UNTIL I TOLD YOU!

Keep tooting that horn. I'm sorry I had to be the one to pop your liberal fantasy world and explain how economics actually work.

>>127810193

First, I was explaining the retardation it takes to brand ALL business owners as greedy and getting more than they deserve. It's a problem for those on the left who can't tell the difference between myself as the small independent retailer and Jeff Bezos, because envy clouds proper judgment.

Then, you have to consider the fact that IF I were able to turn my company into something that suddenly had 50 franchises across the nation and I was rich, why WOULD I be obligated to have to spread it all back if I wanted to keep a bit more than others believed I was entitled to? After all, I put my time, money and security on the line to make it happen, and if I knew that a bunch of jealous fuckbags were intent early on to make sure I could only keep what THEY saw fit and spend my money the way THEY believed was correct, I'd have likely taken less risk and created far fewer jobs and put far less back into the system. With thread of penalization and less potential reward, perhaps I was just content to have one location because I knew that for my additional risk and hard work there'd be little benefit to myself.

Hint: even if people think that corporations are all GETTING AWAY WITH MUH NO TAXES, it just means they're too fucking dumb to understand that there isn't JUST ONE TAX on a company, there are MANY taxes, and some are unavoidable.

For my warehouse manager, consider that between all the shit I have to pay out for them as it is, I pay about 30% MORE than their salary in various taxes to the fucking government, and no matter what, I can never avoid that. Nor can I avoid payroll tax, unemployment tax, etc. that ALL get paid by EVERY COMPANY.

Not to mention, some here are really too foolish to understand that a CEOs salary is NOT the same as "profits" in any way, shape or form. A company can lose money consistently ala Amazon and the CEO and board of directors can keep making more and more money all the while. Funny how this all works, eh?

>>127810690

>ou, sir, are the one who's confused on what "Trickle down economics" actually entails.
Then please, educate me.

>The vast majority of people who "move their money offshore" obtained it illegally in the first fucking place.

WHAT? APPLE AND GOOGLE move their money offshore and they did nothing illegal. Rich people do it to and they (mostly I'm sure) did nothing illegal. They move it overseas so it won't GET TAXED.

And with the tax break money (if they're not moving it overseas) they buy stocks or bonds.

You're living in a retard fantasy world.

>>127810867
>Keep tooting that horn. I'm sorry I had to be the one to pop your liberal fantasy world and explain how economics actually work.

I gave you a definition, you gave me the most insane thing I ever read.

>>127811129

Money generated overseas is not "moving it offshore" you fucking moron. It was never here to begin with.

Jesus Suffering Christ....

How do you think you just magically move money offshore anyways? Do you think you can just initiate a billion dollar bank wire without the IRS all over your ass?

>>127810743

Certainly, we could do this.

However, my suggestion is to initially start by:

1. NOT taxing the fuck out of the middle class, and

2. Incentivizing corporations to keep their money on-shore and giving them more reason to re-invest in things that are of general benefit for the greater good rather than trying to force their hand for more gibs only to watch them find new loopholes in order to get away from paying a thin dime more.

>>127810374
Taxes are not theft you fucking baboon. They're the costs of living in a society.

>Roads
>Justice system
>Defense
>Regulations

And I can go on and on.

Without any of these things corporations wouldn't be able to conduct business

You lolbertarian retards need to be lined up and shot dead. You are the worst type of kikes to ever exist.

>>127811293
>Money generated overseas is not "moving it offshore" you fucking moron.

When did I ever claim that? Post it, please. I'm saying that rich guy gets tax break, then moves the money overseas.

>How do you think you just magically move money offshore anyways? Do you think you can just initiate a billion dollar bank wire without the IRS all over your ass?
No one is getting a "billion dollar tax break" (maybe Buffett or Gates). Dude, open a fucking newspaper, money goes overseas ALL THE TIME. Google barely pays any taxes.

I'm literally arguing with someone who has ZERO knowledge of anything he's saying.

>>127811583
>then moves the money overseas.

How? Is he shipping cash on a boat? Because that's about the ONLY way he'd have a chance in hell of not getting caught.

>Google barely pays any taxes.

We've been over this. Read >>127810087
again. Let it sink in this time.

>>127811439
>Taxes are not theft

Oh you're one of these idiots.

"Convicted of no crime yet being forced to pay money under threat of law & imprisonment is not theft"

Shutup.

>>127810446

Not hard to prove mong logic wrong:

>All wealth is created by labor
>Theft is a transaction that forcefully makes you receive less wealth than you actually produced
>people choose to work for a company and freely sign an employment contract to do so, agreeing that their wage is fair compensation for their labor.
>Since no one was forced to receive less wealth than they produced, no theft occurs

This is how someone can invest but not work without stealing - people agree to work for them. It's why capitalism works and your country is shit.

>>127811778
>How? Is he shipping cash on a boat? Because that's about the ONLY way he'd have a chance in hell of not getting caught.

Dude, it happens all the time. Rich people have investments/accounts, whatever in other countries. And lets just say they DON'T send it overseas. They'll just invest in stocks and bonds in America. Rarely do they use it to create jobs. (if they did, Bush's tax cuts would have been a massive success for the workers, but it wasn't).

>Let it sink in this time
Dude, look it up. I'll do it for you.

"How Google Saved $3.6 Billion Taxes From Paper 'Dutch Sandwich"
=="Reports from Dutch regulatory filings say that Alphabet Inc.’s Google saved $3.6 billion in taxes in 2015 alone by moving $15.5 billion offshore. "

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/12/22/how-google-saved-3-6-billion-taxes-from-paper-dutch-sandwich/#2c38cfe91c19

Seriously, bro, are you a fucking retard?

>>127809652
Everyone should keep more of the money they earn. "Tax breaks" simply mean that the government takes a little less of what a person earns. How can anyone argue with that? The government is a bloated cesspool that could learn to do with less. "The rich" get the benefit of so-called tax breaks BECAUSE THE RICH PAY THE MOST IN TAXES. Already half of the country pays NONE of the Federal income tax so of course they get no direct benefit of lower taxes - you can't go lower than zero (tax credits and welfare aside). I put myself through law school, work my mother fucking ass off in a high stress job and the Fed and State government swoops in and takes 40 fucking percent of every dollar I make because muh fairness. THAT'S what is not fucking fair.

>>127811954
You're a free loading kike then ay

Once again. Pls neck yourself.

Living in society means you have to contribute to its costs. These costs (taxes) going into roads. Defense. Public schools. Public parks. Etc. These cost money.

Don't like paying? fine. Leave society. Go live in the jungle you autistic cunt.

>>127812052
>people choose to work for a company and freely sign an employment contract to do so, agreeing that their wage is fair compensation for their labor.

Absolutely wrong, capitalists exploits worker position because he knows otherwise he would starve, such domination relationship isnt distant of real slavery.

Do you think in the ancient times when slavery existed, that a few guards would be a force against thousands of slaves? Of course not, then why they were slaves? Because if they escaped they would starve and die some days later. Your concept of "free" choice is flawed.

>>127810446
>>all wealth is created by labor
What about automation, thats just a machine creating machines. While it certainly doesn't completely remove labor, it trinckles it down to negligeble levels.
Even so, the leader is the heart and brain of the operation and the company is his doing, only for the profit of himself. You can choose to work under him or not, but ultimately he bears the burden of responsibility for what happens, not you who just screws something in place.
>>Transactions just give you what money you earned, and what you have created isn't entirely yours. You didn't create the car, you just put the enigine in place and installed it, the design isn't yours, the factory isn't yours, the parts of the car aren't yours, so do you deserve the car? No you don't, you just get paid to do a job, the harder it is the more you get paid
>>The CEO doesn't work? Who makes the decisions about how things are run? Do you think low grunts with 2 digit IQ make them? He is the brain of all the operation, to try to steer you in the right direction. If you screw up, the damage is negligible, if he screws up the enterprise is finished.
>>Owners don't work shit?
How do you think you can have an enterprise without someone pouring money in it? Do you think you can build something with materials you can't afford? They paid for all the ascpect of your job, you are just the hired hand that you willingly choose. You didn't spend shit in the whole enterprise, they did, thus it is theirs, you are only there to WORK.
>>Capitalist don't steal from the workers, because they made the enterprise in the first place, without them there wouldn't be any workers. Every system where people start out flat would eventually form a heirarchy, because while it is abominable to you that some people have more power, they also have more responsibility, thus it is a duty left to the most capable, not to some dogshit low iq idiot.

>>127812082
>They'll just invest in stocks and bonds in America

Thereby raising the value, and therefore the net worth of everyone else invested in those stocks and bonds. Derp.

>Google

Did you read the article. No really, did you? Here:

"Reports from Dutch regulatory filings say that Alphabet Inc.’s Google saved $3.6 billion in taxes in 2015 alone by moving $15.5 billion offshore. The reports about the $3.6 billion savings--in just one year--aren't flattering. Yet the move is legal and is decades old. In Google's case, the layering of tax-advantaged companies has been in place since 2004. And Google isn't the only one in Silicon Valley's elite that use it. Facebook flipped more than $700 million to the Cayman Islands as part of a “Double Irish” tax reduction strategy. How does it work?

Google moved money through Google Netherlands Holdings BV, and then on to a Bermuda 'company.' The filings were reported by the Dutch newspaper Het Financieele Dagblad. Google Netherlands Holdings BV reportedly has no employees, yet Google moves the bulk of its non-U.S. profits through it. Since 2004, it has been a key part of Google's tax structure known as a "Double Irish" and a "Dutch sandwich." The tax-driven shell game lets Google slash its effective tax rate outside the U.S. to 6.4% in 2015, according to Alphabet’s filings with the SEC."

TL;DR - THEY BOUGHT SHIT. They created fake company(s) and WROTE IT OFF. EXACTLY AS I'VE BEEN SAYING.

>>127812437

>capitalists exploits worker position because he knows otherwise he would starve, such domination relationship isnt distant of real slavery

Riiiiight, only in America no one starves because food is cheap and shelves are fully stocked thanks to evil Capitalism

>>127812328

The USA existed for ~137 years without stealing people's wages and became a superpower. Your claims are entirely invalid.

>>127810446
If land ownership wasn't enfored by the state you would get warlords. If it belongs to everyone than if belongs to no one, because of different minds people have. Plus what will stop someone from brandishing a gun and started shooting anyone that said the land wasn't his? Nothing it would be anarchy. If you want a state to redistribute it to everyone, then the state has the power on what to do with the land, and that means people on top of the state can choose what to do, you delegated power to them hence dictators.

>>127812437
>capitalists exploits worker position because he knows otherwise he would starve

t. retarded commiefag

As a capitalist who has some conscience about how I run my enterprise, nobody in my operation gets taken advantage of, and I don't exploit anyone within my company since everyone makes a well above average wage.

When times are tough, I take temporary pay cuts to bridge the gap. Nobody loses hours, nobody gets fired, nobody else suffers except me, and I'M THE FUCKING ONE TAKING ALL THE RISKS TO KEEP THIS FUCKER RUNNING. So, I ask you, if my business fails and I'm left holding a 6-figure bill to those who I carry debt or debt agreements with, does that mean my employees are going to rally behind me and help share the burden? Nope, nobody will, so stop treating people like me as greedy fucks and think about this for a fucking minute instead of using your goddamned emotion instead of logic.

People like you who keep making these retarded assumptions about all businesses really do deserve to starve in the streets for being this dumb to assume everyone who is higher up than yourself is taking advantage of you. It's the mindset of weak individuals who have limited capacity to do anything of value, so rather than accept their lot in life, they want to scapegoat others and keep talking about MUH EVIL BIZ OWNERS ARE TAKIN ADVANTAGE OF MUH COWORKERS AMIRITE shit that's just too dumb to ponder.

Please, Chile, understand that Capitalism does not warp all who adopt it into Monty Burns, for fuck's sake, stop being this retarded.

>>127812479
>What about automation
Automation is capital, which was created by labor and we end up in the same.

>The CEO doesn't work?
I literally said the CEO is a worker

>You can choose to work under him or not
The worker cannot choose, is not freedom to decide dying.

>Capitalist don't steal from the workers, because they made the enterprise in the first place, without them there wouldn't be any workers.

Working hard for a scam scheme doesnt make less a scam scheme, of course the capitalists compete with themselves to protect their position of power, but that doesnt make it any better.

>>>Owners don't work shit?
No they dont, and I'm not talking here about the small biz guy. If I own the stocks of a company, I get the earnings in my bank account even if I masturbate all day to anime, I'm talking about the real capitalists.

why do leftists constantly cry abour corporations, but their solutions is always just raising taxes and more regulations on business? why don't they push for ending the fed or breaking up telecom and media monopolies?

>>127812712
>Thereby raising the value, and therefore the net worth of everyone else invested in those stocks and bonds. Derp.

Doesn't help with jobs, dummy. You still don't get it. The underlying principle of trickle down economics is that the big tax cuts to the rich will trickle down to the poor. Do you think the poor has big stock investments in big companies? No. It doesn't benifit them at all. Jobs would benefit them, but trickle down economics doesn't help with jobs.

>TL;DR - THEY BOUGHT SHIT. They created fake company(s) and WROTE IT OFF. EXACTLY AS I'VE BEEN SAYING.

They didn't "buy" anything (a small investment I guess to get the paperwork for Fake Google, inc), but they basically just "filtered" the money through it.

AND JUST AS I'VE BEEN SAYING, THEY DID IT OVERSEAS TO AVOID PAYING US TAXES. HOLY SHIT, YOU'RE SO FUCKING DUMB!

>>127812821
This.

>>127812726
>Riiiiight, only in America no one starves because food is cheap and shelves are fully stocked thanks to evil Capitalism

That doesnt refutes anything, probably slaves didnt starved in the Roman Empire too, whats your point?

>>127813094
I'm not talking about the tiny minority of small biz guys, I'm talking about the guys who really run the game.

File: 4chan (13).jpg (45KB, 488x352px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 488x352px

>>127803030

How to tell people yuge lies that they desperately want to believe are true - subject of Trump's next book

File: copypasta.png (248KB, 1919x933px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1919x933px

>>127811617
>>127805195
But how do we go about spreading the ideology of the Third Position?

>>127813022
We're talking about the ethicals of capitalism, yes, without capitalism there would be warlords.

But still that doesnt make capitalism ethical,at most, its the most practical system in the actual time with our actual technology, but by no means correct neither natural.

>>127813185

When you form a "business" or "company" you can spend whatever the FUCK you want on it, moron. If I own Google 2, and I want to make Google 3, and I have $15 billion on hand... all I have to say is it cost $15 billion to create Google 3.

End of story. The money has now become an expense and is nontaxable. It doesn't matter what the fuck I do with it afterwards. And the whole reason big companies do this is to AVOID taxes in the first place. So you can scream and stomp your feet about "tax breaks" and "businesses not paying their fair share" all you want. Until you completely change the system this is how it will always be. The whole purpose of "trickle down" is to keep the money liquid so they spend it here, not tie it up in fake investments and purchases to avoid uncle sam stealing it.

Why you fail to realize this I guess I'll never understand.

>>127813108
>If I own the stocks of a company, I get the earnings in my bank account even if I masturbate all day to anime,

But, where did you get the money from to invest? You had to work for someone to make that money, correct? It didn't magically appear in your bank account unless you inherited it, and somewhere along the way, someone had to work for that money to get started and built it up from there. And, as you seemingly are not aware of, investments can LOSE money as well. This is why the wealthiest people have this thing called "diversifying" that ensures that when some of their investments are doing poorly (as always happens, nobody picks a fucking winner every time) others can succeed and still get them ahead.

> I'm talking about the real capitalists.

So, you're only a "real capitalist" if you make your money exclusively through passive investment income? What are you smoking?

And, this also begs the question - what's REALLY wrong with being able to work, build wealth, invest that wealth into something you see future value in, make money from it, and eventually make enough that you don't have to toil away for the rest of your fucking life?

Don't get me wrong, I have no objection to doing hard work of any sort, but fuck you if you think I want to work this hard when I'm 70. Precisely why I'm using what I save to invest in other successful companies so, in a decade, regardless of where my company goes, I hope to have enough passive income to make a modest living should I just decide to say "fuck it" to working for anyone else.

Since you're not American, let me clue you in - the American Dream for many is to be able to make enough money to have a good life without having to give your entire life toward the purpose of making money. Not a tough concept to grasp, and I still don't know why this idea is so verboten in other cultures. Perpetual toil doesn't buy your way into the afterlife.

>>127813576
Filename, you fucking dolt.

>>127813108
You completely avoid the point, you get paid what you already are doing and you don't have any responsibility beyond that. You wanna create machines, fine but did you design them? Did you pay for the parts? Did you do anything else except screw some bolts? No you didn't so why should it belong to you?
The worker can decide whatever the fuck he wants, he can go and build his own thing, he can open his own business, you can do whatever you want.
What scam scheme? I decide to pool resources into making a product, you buy the product, and We are both happy. In the grand scheme of things, who helps make the product? The worker that installed something or the guy that paid all to happen in the first place? The worker is easily replaceable thus less valuable, but the guy giving the money is not, thus he is inclined to his fair share.
Yes you get earnings but first how do you plan on getting the money in the first place, and second, the money you have is needed to make a profit, so the owner would gladly give you a piece of the profit if you contribute into achieving it, it isn't so hard

>>127803030
Trickle-down is made up, it doesn't exist. What the fuck is he arguing against? The Laffer Curve?

>>127803030
This is advanced bait.
You lead off the thread with Ha-Joon Chang, who spells out the advantages of economic protectionism and the disadvantages of tariff-less free trade in his excellent book Bad Samaritans, but then you quickly gloss over the fact that we just elected the first guy make his economic platform with polices similar to what Chang recommends in over a century.

>>127813678
Well what do you propose?

>>127813889
They are lucky they got pinochet or those idiots would starve by now

Right wingers created Ford, Coca-cola, Dell, General Motors, IBM, Shell while left wingers created gulag and aushwitz

>>127803030
See the Jews rule the world and own the capital. Which just proves that by giving the capital owners more money and power...

>>127813863
>When you form a "business" or "company" you can spend whatever the FUCK you want on it, moron.
When did I say otherwise?

>all I have to say is it cost $15 billion to create Google 3.
No it didn't, dummy. That's how much they moved around to avoid the $3.6 billion in taxes. Did you understand the article?

>It doesn't matter what the fuck I do with it afterwards.
When did I say otherwise?

>the whole purpose of "trickle down" is to keep the money liquid so they spend it here
I agree, but that's not what happens. They send it overseas, or they buy stocks. IF THEY TRICKLE DOWN THEORY WORKED, THE POOR WOULD BENEFIT FROM IT. THAT'S WHAT "TRICKLE DOWN" MEANS!

I can't believe how you lack the optics on this. You're really just talking nonsense at this point. Just remember you didn't know what trickle down economics was 15 minutes ago.

>>127810374
>>127811293

t. Shlomo ben Shekelbergsteinbaum

American conservatives are simply another breed of cucks. The entire US system is based upon choosing between being ducked by one form of globalization or another. It was engineered to be like this.

>>127814396
Nazi were right wingers, so essentially they were people that created things like Mercedes, Porsche, Krupp steel but also with Gulags.

File: 1479736793354.png (148KB, 990x763px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 990x763px

>>127803030
>billionaire class and large corporations not making sure to make both right and left benefit them

You're so dumb and retarded it's astounding.

I don't support tax cuts for the wealthy because I believe in trickle down economics. Actually I don't care if cutting taxes to the wealthy stimulates the economy in any way. I support it because taking peoples' money is fucking wrong, and there is no reason people should have to pay more just because they are successful

Also, this whole voodoo language calling it redistribution is ridiculous. How is not taking someones money redistributing it? Isn't that the exact opposite of redistributing it?

Just imagine what happens if Zuerger really starts paying basic universal income.

>>127814496
((they)) cleverly made it into a dichotomy between hating capitalism or loving greedy and amoral globalists. Most just consume and accept this like a Swede engorging on negro semen

>>127814542
They were socialist though to a degree, hence the name, National Socialism. The state was involved in the economy pretty heavily


>>127814664
Well shekelled shlomo, enjoy your ill gotten gains taken from the babies of the goyim

File: IMG_6898.jpg (127KB, 805x436px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 805x436px

>>127803030
The economic platform that Trump ran on literally embodies the principles for sane trade practices that your pic related Ha-Joon Chang is known for.
Whether or not there is enough power left in an executive branch hamstrung by bureaucracy, the judiciary, and congress to fulfill those goals is anyone's guess, but how you go from Chang to National Socialism is a bit of a mystery.
Ha-Joon Chang and Trump are, policy-wise, two brothers from the same mother.

>>127814459
> or they buy stocks

Uh, what occurs when you buy stocks?

You invest in a company by injecting money and in return, receive a portion of the company's ownership stake.

What happens when companies get cash infusions?

They reinvest in added manpower, upgrading equipment, work on new developments, open new locations, and do more.

Who does these tasks? The employees who now have more work to do, which equates to better job security and more potential for upward mobility.

Stocks aren't just magic numbers or pieces of paper that make people wealthy by sheer magic, folks. The purchase of stock in a company can help fuel growth and further development that helps even the lowest level employee.

Or, we could go the whole "THEY'LL UST BUY ANOTHER YACHT" line, and completely forget that regular schmucks are the ones who are designing the yachts, regular guys are the ones making the raw materials to build them from, and regular guys are the ones assembling those yachts.

Nothing just magically happens without the little guy, and just because a company gets $50 million of cash injected and not everyone gets their salary doubled doesn't mean there isn't good happening in the process.

So many easy-to-see things that are being overlooked in all of this, it's starting to make my head hurt.

>>127813889
>But, where did you get the money from to invest? You had to work for someone to make that money, correct?

You really are so naive that you think the big financial groups right now are the story of a hard worker? Please check actual history.


>And, as you seemingly are not aware of, investments can LOSE money as well

Not my fault that such investor is a unskilled thief

>And, this also begs the question - what's REALLY wrong with being able to work, build wealth, invest that wealth into something you see future value in, make money from it, and eventually make enough that you don't have to toil away for the rest of your fucking life?

Oh the american dream! Here is the thing, its sounds goods and all, it made people dream and literlly create a superpower, but guess what, its just a great pyramid scheme, yes you want to invest and be happy,etc but to that investment to work, someone haves to ACTUALLY work in your investment, and that sucker is dreaming on the american dream too! So he saves, invests and puts the next sucker to work and there go ad infinitum! There's nothing wrong in wanting to exploit suckers, its human nature, but dont sell it as the ethical position.

>>127814001
The worker literally did the thing, how is he less valuable? You're just complicating things but its fundamentally the same, yes, the machine needs to be: designed, create the parts, and screw some bolts. I'm saying that the designer, the creator, and the bolt screwer must be pay the share of what they worked for (which is a bit abstract here because it involves more steps). The thing is, in our current system, some guy takes a cut of every guy who contributed to that machine.

>>127814459

This is you're only comeback: "hurr durr you don't really know what trickle down economics is"

I'm well aware of what it is you fucking retard. But unlike you, I understand THE. WHOLE. PROCESS. Not just what happens at the top. Not just what the libtard buzzwords entail.

>They send it overseas

Tell me something, mr economic expert, what if their tax rate was ZERO? What would they do with the money then?

>>127805241
That's fine, just do what Germany did around 20-30s

>>127814976
>What happens when companies get cash infusions?
>They reinvest in added manpower, upgrading equipment, work on new developments, open new locations, and do more.


Not any more, they slash middle management and vote for an increase in the upper management pay scale especially that of the CEO

>>127814871
They were indeed, but they still believed in people's innovation and personal enginuety

>>127814976

If all that were true then the Bush tax cuts would have been a rousing success. Instead it led to a poor job market and a poor economy (even before the housing market collapse).

File: 1494721168037.jpg (34KB, 461x445px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 461x445px

>>127803030
>haha communism is the real right wing right fellow white people?

>>127815079

You didn't say "big financial groups" you simply said "if I choose to jack it to porn and have stock in good companies, I make money and am inherently bad for it." I know people who make money without working, and they're not bad people, they were just smarter than you or me about how to invest.

Do you honestly believe that everything only goes upward and gets better and bad things don't happen to decent companies? REALLY? Wow.

>someone haves to ACTUALLY work in your investment, and that sucker is dreaming on the american dream too! So he saves, invests and puts the next sucker to work and there go ad infinitum!

And, providing the people below me don't piss away their money like retarded monkeys, they ALL have a shot at living this dream themselves.

Just because you've obviously made many poor choices does not inherently make everything you do NOT do ethically wrong. You really need to accept this, but something tells me you will continue to pat yourself on the back because you were never clever enough to work up beyond the bottom.

>>127815107
>This is you're only comeback: "hurr durr you don't really know what trickle down economics is"

You really don't, you thought it was this:

Rich guy(s) own big bank
Big banks loan money to smaller banks
Farmer gets loan from small bank
Farmer hires help
You are the help

>I'm well aware of what it is you fucking retard.
No you don't.

>. But unlike you, I understand THE. WHOLE. PROCESS.
You didn't know it involved tax cuts until I told you.

>Tell me something, mr economic expert,
When did claim to be an economic expert?

I guess you gave up on the point I made about how Google sends money overseas to avoid paying taxes (and you for some reason thought they spend $15 billion overseas to avoid paying #3.6 billion? Who's the "economic expert" now?)

>>127814087
No substitutes sadly, even when commies want to say otherwise.(Maybe in the future?) But its needed to acknowledge that capitalism is not free of leeches and its fundamentally based on owning capital and taking a tax on workers production, its like a biological system with predators and prey.

>>127803030
Right wingers know they will work hard. If I make $70k a year I'll take home $50k. That is why I don't want high taxes. Leftists only think in terms of what OTHER more rich people make. They believe as long as somebody is doing better they themselves can not do well too.

>>127815184
Nothing wrong with that. The right strawman that all the non-right want is soviet communism with no personal responsibility, and the left strawman that everyone non-left want complete laissez-faire. Both left and right shill for the surveillance state and the creeping barrage of state intrusion

>>127815079
No, because if you take the designer, the manufacturer and the assembler they all work on a system that is designed by the owner, and if they want to create said system they can perfectly legally be able to do such a thing, there are plenty of companies that follow such a model, but companies that have a single creator, that's his enterprise thus his terms, you can either agree or not its your choice.

>>127815165
Because every company runs exactly the same, amirite?

Really, this thread should just be renamed "BLANKET STATEMENTS OF ANTI-CAPITALISTS WHO WISH THEY WERE RICH" and we'd be better off just cutting to the chase, since valid points go out the window when someone says HURR, THAT ONE COMPANY DID BAD, SO THEY ALL DO BAD.

>>127815484
What is wrong with multibillion dollar corporations paying as much or more tax than you do? Why should the middle class pay more tax than the upper classes? If the big corporations paid their fair share, you should get a hefty tax cut. You are a fox news retard, a shill for your betters who laugh at your stupidity

>>127815518
Blah blah another brainless screed from a shill who's too stupid to know his own interests.

>>127815474
It's natural thats why it works. Do you think nature is nice and ethical? Newsflash it isn't, cause if eagles didn't kill bunnies then the bunnies would completely destroy the eco system, not that much different in humans. Also taxes are part of the state, not capitalism

>>127803030
Democrats never actually lower taxes.
If i had lower taxes i would be fine.
Democrats cannot stop lying or spending money. California has something like half a trillion dollars proposed for the budget this year. Like 4x previous years because the dems finally have a super majority.
Dems are fucking shit monsters like senator Leland Yee.

Literally the leader of the gun control caucus in California.

He was convicted of international arms trafficking, and the story disappeared.

>>127815500
That's because it is impossible for either of them to work without heavy control and surveillance, because they need people to behave unnaturally.

>>127815464

I didn't give anything up moron. I explained, MANY posts back, that companies will BUY shit to avoid taxes. Where the money ends up is irrelevant. It's exactly what all big corporations do. And the more you tax them, the more they will do it.

>No you don't

This is all you have. Literally. I've shot your claims down at every fucking turn, you don't know how to respond other than to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la you don't know what you're talking about" and fall back on this whole "tax break" argument because that's all the liberal talking heads can ever address, therefore that's the only part you understand.

I'll ask you again: If that tax rate was ZERO - what would these companies do with their money? If you continue to evade the question this discussion is over.

>>127815711

Yep, been successfully operating my business for 17 years, I guess I don't know my own interests, right fella?

My interests are taking care of myself first and foremost while providing a quality service and giving my employees better-than-average pay.

Maybe you should just neck yourself for being a jealous faggot who doesn't read any posts that don't fit his narrow views of reality, because man, you're delusional as fuck if you think my "interests" are simply seeking revenge on the rich as you seem to want.

Stay mad, and stay poor, maybe the gommies will save you.

>>127815518

You said:
>What happens when companies get cash infusions?
>They reinvest in added manpower, upgrading equipment, work on new developments, open new locations, and do more.

Because every company runs exactly the same, amirite? No doubt small businesses do what you describe, because they are controlled generally by the people doing the work and who are responsible for keeping the business afloat. If you knew anything, you'd realize that most multinationals are not run by such people.

>>127805241
Hey, that's exactly what happened to the Amazon warehouse in Connecticut. Malloy raises taxes on them, they try to renegotiate, he refuse, they hop the border and 100 or so jobs are lost.

Talk about killing the golden goose.

>>127803030
>lowering taxes is redistribution
kek

>>127815948
You'd probably qualify as a small business only. You'd rather work like a slave for relatively modest returns than make the playing field level.
t. Shlomo ben Shekelbersteinbaum too stupid to realize that if the public had more disposable wealth it would be good for the economy, especially small business, that large corporations ruin the planet and leech from their home countries, and that government is one of the biggest consumers of services from small businesses

>>127815900
>I didn't give anything up moron. I explained, MANY posts back, that companies will BUY shit to avoid taxes.
But Google didn't BUY anything. They opened a SHELL CORPORATION and filtered the money through it. Did you read the article?

>Where the money ends up is irrelevant. It's exactly what all big corporations do. And the more you tax them, the more they will do it.
Uh, you're whole thing was "how are they getting that money overseas, by boat?! It's illegal and the IRS would be on to them!" Dude, you can't even keep your stories straight

>This is all you have. Literally. I've shot your claims down at every fucking turn,
No you didn't. You had NO IDEA that trickle down economics was a tax cut for the rich. YOU POSTED WHAT YOU THOUGHT IT WAS.

>" and fall back on this whole "tax break" argument because that's all the liberal talking heads can ever address
I'm not getting political. You are, throwing around boogy man terms like "liberal".

>I'll ask you again: If that tax rate was ZERO - what would these companies do with their money?
Dole it out as dividends to shareholders. Give themselves raises. Upgrade their offices. Whatever they want to do.

>If you continue to evade the question this discussion is over.
You're the one who refuses to accept the fact that trickle down economics doesn't help the poor (even though the words "trickle down" are literally in the title).

>>127816124
Should put duties on such corporate traitors

>>127815973

I've read about medium to very large corporations who don't operate the same way of bleeding things out, so does that mean these never existed?

Sure, we're in an era of things being much more fucked than usual, but the assumption that every corporation is run exclusively by greedy Scrooge McDuck types who are swimming in gold coins for recreation while everyone who works for them barely scrapes by is definitely absurd.

So, sure, there are many fucked companies who do shitty things where the upper level of ownership and management prosper while others struggle. And, other companies who receive investments also do well by their employees AND investors as well and everyone wins.

It goes both ways, I just don't look at it exclusively from the side of envy and scorn because I'm far from being at the top.

>>127815948

Idjit millenials will never understand how business actually operates. They will never compute a payroll. They will never balance an inventory. They will never understand the blood, sweat, and tears that go into creating something from nothing, or how there may even be times where the owner must forego pay to pay his employees. They have been indoctrinated to believe they are owed something simply because they exist, and they shouldn't have to work hard for it... and if YOU did, and you are better off than they are, you are the enemy. You were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and it should all be stolen from you.

>>127803030
>upward re-distribution of income
Ma-Joon is a retard. It's their money, they get to keep it.

>>127816424
This all around, and in every phase of commerce.
What the anglosphere needs is a good old fashioned trade war.
The feeble mud people who we currently carry on our backs must be shucked off, and soon.

>>127816475
Not every corporation follows the scenario I describe to the letter, but more large corporations do this than they do what you mentioned in the post I replied to in your rose-tinted worldview. And I don't envy at all people who have worked hard to achieve a measure of success and look after their employees. I applaud and value such people. If that's what you have done, good on you

>>127815382
>And, providing the people below me don't piss away their money like retarded monkeys, they ALL have a shot at living this dream themselves.

You're taking it too personal dude.

Not everyone can win, by design of the system (someone owns the company, someone works). You're justifying by saying its mertiocratic, the guy who owns was smarter, therefore he deserves it, like if a dog eat dog world would be something acutally right.

Now something we can agree with is that yes, this constant competition, saving and investment tends to improve life, that makes it at least better than socialism.


>>127815766
We make it ethical by not having to compete if its not needed, we don't need to fall in the game of natural evolution.

>Also taxes are part of the state, not capitalism
There's no capitalism without a powerful state that can use force to protect property

>>127803030
https://youtu.be/rbFOyTr0ajQ

>>127816274

Okay, so you totally ignored everything I wrote where I said that THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE REST OF THE WORKING CLASS SHOULD BE TAXED FAR LESS RATHER THAN SIMPLY SEEKING REVENGE ON THE WEALTHIEST BECAUSE IT JUST DOESN'T BALANCE THINGS OUT EVER.

When you say "level the playing field", you're saying you are the moral authority on who deserves what and how wealth should be allocated based on your emotional needs.

The truest way to level the playing field is to take less from those who have the least, incentivize those who have the most to do the most for those who have the least, and prevent those who own the game being played from packing their shit up to constantly look for greener pastures.

Simply being jealous of the rich and wanting to take what they have does jack shit, and it will never make you wealthier nor will you succeed at making those who have vast wealth any less rich. This isn't rocket science, it's evidenced by the fact that you have to go full SEIZE THE MEANS to have the control you wish existed, and I'm not wanting any of that shit.

Just tax us all a whole fuckload less and let's be done with it.

>>127816542
Strawman and false dichotomy. see
>>127816722

To say that small business deserves more of a break than the law-unto-themselves multinationals is hardly communism

>>127816361
Giving people things doesn't really work out in the long run, no matter what economic system you have in place.
Let me tell you a story, I have a cousin who fell in hard times, but I grew up with the guy, he is my best friend so I helped him by giving him around 1.5 minimum wage every month, but he refused to take money from me cause he was ashamed. He instead asked for a loan, opened a club and now tried to pay me back a lot more than I first gave to him. Naturally I just took the same amount I had given.
Now would he be ashamed if the state offered him money? He knew what I have been through so he didn't want to take from me, but would he refuse the state's money? Obviously not, because he doesn't feel any connection to it, the money might just as well fall from the sky, and he would be nothing but a parasite weighting down the whole nation.

>>127816690
Brilliant.

>>127803799
This. I would be happy if this guy was talking about giving tax cuts to middle income earners but he's not.

>>127816361
>But Google didn't BUY anything. They opened a SHELL CORPORATION and filtered the money through it.

Clearly you have never run or had even minor experience in running a business. Just because an asset isn't tangible doesn't mean it doesn't have value. A "shell corporation" is still a corporation and they can assign whatever cost to it they want you ignorant fuck. GOD how are you not getting this?

>No you didn't. You had NO IDEA that trickle down economics was a tax cut for the rich.

Yes I did. And have. And continue to. But when I explained the whole actual "trickle down" process - ie from the rich to the consumer, it just blew your little peabrain all to shit. "b...but Rachel Maddow says it just a tax cut for the rich and nothing more!" You're really not worth educating at this point. You are dumber than a box of rocks kicked over.

>Dole it out as dividends to shareholders

Oh, so increase the net worth of everyone invested in their company? Such as every John Q Citizen who has a pension or 401k? No fucking way!

/sarc

^And that, as the natives would say, is how you defeat your own argument. Thanks for playing. Run along now, we're done here little boy.

>>127803799
Same revenue to the government with a higher percentage coming from the super wealthy.

>>127804570
It's not theft if you provide services and utilities, you colossal retard.

>>127816735
You are in the game of natural evolution bud, but now the price is poverty, before it was death. Be grateful
Yes there is. Capitalism in its most simple form is nothing but anarchy with a bunch of armed warlords controlling things. The enterprises would just have armies to compete for land, and this system already happened in the form of kingdoms and empires.

>>127812821

>The USA existed for ~137 years without taxes and became a superpower.

are you sure about this? are you absolutely certain that this is what you wanted to post?

>>127803030
>vote for party that has economic plans that are kind to your tax bracket
>vote for party that does not want to feed savages that try to murder you

not even a tough call

>>127816802
No, multinationals should pay tax and and the legislated rate in the jurisdiction in which they are making the money. Don't strawman me as a gommie because this has nothing to do with that. I'm pro-business, actually. I don't believe in endless gibmedats. I do believe though that it is in the interests of a society, an economy, and small business in particular, that government run smoothly and that certain services (like roads) are provided and maintained and that government doesn't go bankrupt. Of course, government needs to learn to spend within its means, that is another issue.

Those who have made something of themselves through sound use of capital should be applauded and incentivized

>>127817215
see
>>127811954

>>127817284

Ok, you got me a wee bit. "The USA existed for ~137 years without *INCOME* taxes and became a superpower."

There.

>>127817404
You should be forced to provide your own roads, electricity and water. As it is, you are stealing from the community

>>127817085
>Clearly you have never run or had even minor experience in running a business. Just because an asset isn't tangible doesn't mean it doesn't have value. A "shell corporation" is still a corporation and they can assign whatever cost to it they want you ignorant fuck. GOD how are you not getting this?

I already said that they paid for the Fake Google, inc documents to prove the shell corporation exists. YOU made it seem like they spend $15 billion overseas when all they did was MOVE that money around. Bro, you're embarrassing yourself now.

>Yes I did. And have. And continue to.
Then why did you originally post otherwise?

>But when I explained the whole actual "trickle down" process - ie from the rich to the consumer, it just blew your little peabrain all to shit.
It blew my mind because that's not what it is. It's a tax break. You're explanation literally shocked me with how dumb you are.

> "b...but Rachel Maddow says it just a tax cut for the rich and nothing more!"
Ronald Reagan says the same thing. He built his economic agenda on it.

>You're really not worth educating at this point. You are dumber than a box of rocks kicked over.
You got the trickle down theory definition wrong. You thought Google SPENT $15 billion overseas to avoid paying $3.6 billion in taxes. YOU kept saying "companies don't send money overseas! how would they get it their, by boat!"

>Oh, so increase the net worth of everyone invested in their company? Such as every John Q Citizen who has a pension or 401k? No fucking way!
You asked a hypothetical question, I gave a hypothetical answer, now you're using it as FACTS. HOLY. FUCKING. SHIIIIT!

>^And that, as the natives would say, is how you defeat your own argument. Thanks for playing. Run along now, we're done here little boy.
No we're not. You still haven't proven how trickle down economics helps the poor. (not surprising, since you didn't know what it was until I told you).

>>127817478
No state has existed without taxes. Are you an anarcho-capitalist?

>>127817215
So I'll come to your house, hold a gun to your head, take all your money, buy you some bread and keep the rest. It's ok though cause I'm providing a bread delivery service.

>>127817622

Roads are paid via gasoline taxes, which nobody is FORCED to pay unless you buy gasoline.

Water is paid via property/utility taxes which nobody is FORCED to pay unless you buy property in a municipality.

Electricity is a private utility.

Clearly you do not even America. Maybe you should educate yourself before interjecting?

>>127817749
Well that would happen all the time without police which the state pay for. Are you planning on setting up your own gang to provide vigilante justice? Without a state an economy is virtually meaningless.

>>127817478

So what you're trying to tell me is that the absolute peak of the US economy happened before income tax existed? Is that what you think?

>>127817667

I say it again: INCOME TAXES. Do you need a reading lesson?

Or are you another stupid Aussie fuck that doesn't understand how the USA was founded, and yes - we did exist and subsist quite fucking well for over a CENTURY without them.

>>127817861
Well the police will provide the vital service of punishing you when you don't pay taxes.

>>127817883

Do show me where I said that. I'll wait.

File: 1464799494741.jpg (82KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 512x384px

what do liberals and communists mean when they say corporations get welfare and unfair tax breaks?

>>127818025

Okay, if the US was stronger after income tax, then don't you think that means that it's a good thing?

>>127817947
Income tax exists just to get votes to ensure the welfare masses stay content until they grow too large and collapse the nation. Even if you were to restart the nation it will again happen because of idiots who again would want to buy votes

>>127817818
The full cost of these services is not generally paid by the consumer, at least in most countries. Also, who is going to pay for the military? When you've stopped paying taxes, then Mexican bandits will occupy the whole country. Gasoline taxes must be extraordinarily high if they pay for all the road infrastructure in your country, including bridges, construction of new highways, public transport etc.. Ok, what you are saying is bullshit then

>>127818075
The USA as a state or the citizens of the USA? Bear in mind that state power has absolutely nothing to do with the individuals personal wealth or freedom.

>>127803030

The US economy does not exist in a vacuum.

It competes for money from the entire world by creating a tax system that tempts the rich to keep their money within their own economy.

When people complain about "trickle down economics" they're ignoring that the extremely wealthy have the choice of not participating in their economy. Some companies debate whether to even bother operating in the west when they could just try participating in China.

It betrays the left's ignorance on the economy when they argue that we should operate as though our economy is more isolated while at the same time promoting more globalist economic policies.

>>127817999
The police generally aren't involved in that, unless you are a complete bogan douchebag

>>127817947
Income tax is a relatively new phenomenon. Still would you prefer to be taxed on the basis of your wealth? That's generally what happened before. Although I don't know (or really care) what happened in merkinland

>>127818245
If the tax breaks of the US are the only thing it has going for it vis-a-vis China, then yes you'd be stupid to stay there. But if you make money in a country, you should be forced to pay your tax in that country. Is that not simple enough for you shills to understand?

>>127818268
So you're saying that some arm of law enforcement will not come to my house and lock me up or force me to "pay back" money that I "stole" from the state if I don't pay taxes on anything I earn? Forcibly removing money or goods from a person that you did not earn is the definition of theft.

>>127818219

So you'd rather have less money than more money?

>>127818561
Yeah only if you are a complete bogan douchebag who won't pay when ordered to a court. Most civilized people don't ever get to that level.

>>127818075

Entirely depends on your definition of "Stronger".

Militarily? Sure. But are we a truly united people in 2017? Fuck no. Therefore, such as anyone who has progressed from "nation" to "empire" we will only reign supreme so long as our military can keep the status quo. History tells us this will not last forever.

>>127818204

Local roads are maintained via municipal taxes & fines, state roads are maintained via state taxes on gasoline, and the interstate system is maintained as a military expense. BTW - we won a multitude of wars WELL before the income tax was established.

How about you live in my country once before making wild assumptions about it?

>>127818528
Ahh so... If you are alive in the US, you owe them money? Not to flourish, but to survive? That incurs a fee? Fuck off

>>127818734
So you're saying that government is a scheme to remove money you earn by theft and redistribute it to people who didn't earn it? Gotcha

>>127818407

As a libertarian I abhor virtually all taxes. As a realist I understand they must exist in some form for government to function. That being said, the only taxes I support are a "national sales tax" on products that are not required to sustain life. In that instance people are free to pay them or not via their purchases.

>>127818816
You wouldn't win a single war today without income tax because your military spending would go down the absolute shitter. Also merkin infrastructure is very poor by OECD standards, you find the odd bridge just collapsing inconveniently, regular gas explosions and the like. You get what you pay for

>>127818887
The cost for services has gone through the roof, this seems pretty immoral, but if you are earning good money, or indeed big money (multi millions) you should be contributing to the system which helped you.

>>127818980
No, I assume you are illiterate

>>127819025
That could be made to work. It is a valid philosophical position. But military and education spending would have to be slashed. Therefore it would have to be globally accepted for the US to be competitive.

>>127819157

Wrong.

When we jumped into WW2 we had an income tax system in place, but it's impact on the average joe was minimal if it impacted them at all. We financed the war through war bonds which people bought WILLINGLY. A united people will do that. A divided people will not. HALF the population bought war bonds during WW2.

>>127818816

>But are we a truly united people in 2017? Fuck no.

Are you saying that people are divided because of income tax?

>>127819442

We could slash military spending in half simply by ceasing operations as the "world police".

>>127819642

Not directly, no. But income tax finances all the goddamn social welfare programs we must fund today, and draws the lines between the "I will work for it" and the "gibs me dats".

Without the current income tax system, the gibsmedats simply could not exist.

>>127818245
>Some companies debate whether to even bother operating in the west when they could just try participating in China.
That's a joke. China's protectionist mercantilism, with heavy VAT on imports is designed to keep Westerners out and trade surplus high.
Nobody walks away from the west, it's the biggest market there is, and the source of structural stability that allows the global market to remain open for business.
All that bluster about pulling up stakes and leaving is just a smokescreen for stashing all the profit made selling cheap manufactures in the west offshore in tax havens, which is practically treasonous, and should really be punishable by death.
t. right wing

>>127803799
>Let's not cut taxes
>Whoa don't go raising them there

I like the idea of low taxes as much as any American, but the reasoning here is a little flawed. Also I understand why we have taxes, the shit show that is Social Security, oh btw you can get that free by reducing you SSN by one, you get whoever was registered before you'd number, and out big ass military. The latter of which I'm fine with.

>>127819802

So do you think that without income tax, people in the US would be more united and get along with each other?

>>127803030
>Give the biggest cuts, percentagewise to the small person
>This is apparently pro corporation/billionare just because 1% of a billion is more than the 99%'s taxcuts.

>>127819988

Not anymore. There are too many gibsmedats and bleeding hearts in this day and age. There's pretty just 2 ways to fix it at this point:

1) Collapse into Civil War
2) Balkanize

>>127820215
You don't know that to a certainty.
What was done can be undone.

File: 28088890-39bf-4ec0-9989-89114bb0a585.gif (3MB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x225px

>>127808148
Why don't we just stop corporations from dodging taxes and/or passing on the cost to the consumer?

File: 5_10.jpg (26KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 300x300px

>>127803030
>chinese
>economics
k

>>127818528
Is it that difficult for you to understand that you can make more money from investing in some countries than others?

It's not solely China, but every country in the world that is competing for the money from investors as well as just the money from people that want to live in one country versus another (who have the money to choose which country they reside in).

There's a reason corporate inversion was such a hot topic early in Trump's campaign.

https://youtu.be/fRxIhJohkCY

>>127820471

You go ahead and tell Jamal he can't has his gibs anymore. LMK how that works out for you.

>>127820522

>Price controls

I hear that's working great in Venezuela right now.

>>127820569
that's pretty obviously a korean dumbfuck

>>127820735
Maybe try it in a stable country that isn't a complete shithole? I dunno why people say "We can't do anything about it" when you obviously could. Companies like Apple aren't going to stop selling in America. If you threaten to ban their products there if they dodge taxes or force the cost onto consumers they'll basically have to capitulate. Only issue would be retards being scared of losing muh apple products.

>>127820735
You can make a better straw man than that.
The question is not whether or not one can take away gibs, but rather, how to more effectively manage national economic policy so that there are jobs to transition Jamal into as we reduce welfare payments.
Don't put the cart before the horse, lad.

File: Oink.jpg (41KB, 306x428px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 306x428px

It has nothing to do with either ideological position that is claimed.

It is not trickledown economics
Nor is it merely redistributing wealth upwards.

Its facing the harsh reality, that the wealthy and tax shop, because we do not have proper international double tax agreements.

So basically we have countries under tax competition for the rich and for companies. E.G offshore havens.

>>127821091

>Thinking you can control the free market.

How many examples would you like of countries that thought they could do this?

>>127821271

> Thinking Jamal, after 20 years of gibs, has any intention or desire to work.

Stop living in a fantasy world.

>>127821372
America probably has the actual power to do it though, but go ahead and list some countries on par with America's economy that tried and failed to do it.

I wouldnt mind an ultra wealth tax that was used to fund better road and rail infrastructure, which would lead to cheaper housing. Lower taxation at median incomes would be nice too.

>>127820714
Corporates are traitors and should be executed

>>127821301
Competely correct. Now just hand over a sigificant portion of your industry and military to us and we will raise our taxes.

If you could ungenocide a few countries while you are at it that would be great.

>>127821458
Start making valid arguments anytime.

>>127821465
>but go ahead and list some countries on par with America's economy that tried and failed to do it.

That's where your assumption fails. Right there. Every country has thought "we're going to do it right this time!".

Societies cannot exist for any extended period of time on socialism. This is why no society ever starts out on socialism - because it will never fucking get anywhere. Capitalism must exist so that socialism has a pool of wealth to draw from. Once the wealth is exhausted, socialism fails. Always has, always will. The USA would be no exception to these basic fundamentals of economics short of the fact that we probably have the wealth to keep it going longer than others have.

You want a socialistic utopia? I'll tell you how to do it. Invent the "star trek" replicator. Only when something can be produced for nothing can socialism thrive. Until that technology arises, capitalism will reign supreme.

>>127821566
They're not beholden to any country. So even if you dislike them and want them executed that doesn't help the US with taxing them which is the primary problem.

They're choosing regions other than the US to base some of their holdings due to our tax system which is hurting us.

Why shouldn't they be rewarded?
Equal opportunity, if you want money than fucking work for it

>>127821940
That was a fantastic list anon thank you.

>>127821940
Are you talking about actual socialism which many call communism or social democracy which is found in Europe, and also the US?

>>127818245
>the US economy does not exist in a vacuum
>the United States of America, a completely independent and self-sustaining corporate body formed by its citizens, does not exist in a vacuum
>>127821977
>minor private corporations that actually buoy themselves on the goodwill of the nations they do business in, do exist in a vacuum
That's all a little bit contradictory, don't you think?

>>127820981
Funny how it is not an East Asean but western uni
very brave
fuckin asian dindus should go home and educate their own, they were nowhere until western enlightenment came a dragged them out of their medieval nest

>>127822107

I'm not your Google. There are untold numbers of countries, wealthy and poor, where socialism has failed. Do your own fucking reading.

I know that so many results will prove confusing so I'll make it easier for you: Name me any one society or country that started out with socialism and still exists.

>>127804450

NEVER give corporations the power to do what they want

Businesses totally ABUSED the 457, thought they were being SMART.

Corporations ( especially non listed ) seek personal wealth ABOVE profit.

They would actually abuse their host country enough to drive down the buying power of the populous, then market cheaper goods.

Regulate CORPS to fuck and back and if they hate it, they can fuck off, we'll make a better local solution.

CORPS, = GLOBALISM AND KIKERY.

Regulate them like the bitches they are, they love the dollar, they'll stay.

>>127822443
>how many countries would you like
>S-shit I can't actually list any though do your own research!

You've been brainwashed by Jews. Stop sucking corporate dick for one moment.

>>127822263

Socialism is a form of communism and I'm not going to engage in semantics. When you take from those who worked for it and give to those who did not, they are one in the same.

>>127822314
What the fuck are you talking about?

People and businesses with huge amounts of money can take that money and put it in different countries depending on which would benefit them the most.

The US has every reason to try and create a system that benefits it by making it more profitable for those people and businesses to bring in or keep their money within the US so that it can be taxed.

What is it that seems contradictory to you?

Based on your comments:
>the United States of America, a completely independent and self-sustaining corporate body formed by its citizens, does not exist in a vacuum
>minor private corporations that actually buoy themselves on the goodwill of the nations they do business in, do exist in a vacuum

You make it sound as though the US as a country could take all its money that it is investing (as though it is a corporate body that invests in stocks/business venture/whatever), and place it within another country. Do you think the US government needs to be dodging the US tax system?

>>127803030
Yeah but anon. We need to spread wealth to more people because Africans keep shitting them out. So putting money in the hands of the few is a good way to put us all on the same level.

>>127822587

>hurr durr socialism works...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states#Former

>>127822603
The beneift of most peoples productivity is concentrated among a small number of capitalists and I am all for taking from them.

I make €60,000 a year. I should be taxed less. No I am not a hypocrit.

>>127822672
>People and businesses with huge amounts of money can take that money and put it in different countries depending on which would benefit them the most.
That's debatable. Doing business in the U.S. is a privilege, and if you want to do so, that privilege comes with responsibilities.
>The US has every reason to try and create a system that benefits it by making it more profitable for those people and businesses to bring in or keep their money within the US so that it can be taxed.
>implying that our system is not already the best, and that people should beg us for the right to sell goods here
You've got things turned around here. The United States of America, and her lawful citizens, are in the catbird seat.
We don't have to allow anyone to do business here, period. And if you really think you can fuck off to China and live like you do here, be my guest. You are sadly mistaken. The former british colony of Hong Kong is not China, although post handover it is rapidly regressing to what it was before westerners set up shop over there.
I will invite you again, start making valid arguments anytime.

>>127823063

I will agree with you that first world countries are devaluing themselves which I why I support any movement that re asserts the economy and consumers to outside business interests.

Buying in to first world us a higher TT ier if customer. Not peso of silly shit. People holding hundreds it thousands of Dollars to spend.

Government needs to strike more fear into business and not pander to them. The value for the business ave s to adhere to the gov demands or fuck off to s place where everyone only has $10 to spend per day.

In any first world country we can adequate ly fill any voids in business, we don't NEED a business, business NEEDS us.

tldr. agree

File: extinct.jpg (21KB, 300x200px)

21KB, 300x200px

>>127803030

Because modern white men are stupid idiots who think being educated ends after six months of trade school and they'll believe anything.

Watching you retards constantly get manipulated is hilarious and sad. But there is no hope for you or the white race so I have accepted the dark future ahead for all of us. I've come to embrace the slaughter.

If you wanted power and control over your societies you retards would suffer through college, climbs the ladders of power and change things. Instead, you're plumbers and welders; I've thrown away bespoke Italian shoes with shit on the bottom that are worth more than your lives.

File: facebookowner.jpg (230KB, 600x460px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 600x460px

>>127803030
sub par trolling, straya. too easy

>>127823736

>Italian shoes worth more than Australian flesh.

U r wog? Absolute ly untrue.

>>127823736
>bespoke Italian shoes
Are they penny loafers, by chance?

>>127823736

PS. If I was in America, I'd find me a nice pair of American shoes you fucking lazy traitor.

>>127803799
tax super rich who have excess money in banks doing nothing. give to poor who spend it on stuff. easy fix. and dont give me that they invest their weath bullshit, ultimately that money is better being spent in the 'real' economy because the 'non real' economy is bullshit.

>>127806597
Hey Anon, can you fit a bathroom for me?

>>127823063
>We don't have to allow anyone to do business here, period

No one is required to do business or keep their money within the US.

You you can't just pass a law to force people to do business with the US or that they must have their money in the US.

Is this honestly that complicated to understand? There have to be incentives to promote the actions you wish to take place. It would be nice to be able to tax the money from some wealthy individuals or businesses, but you have to have a system that promotes that behavior.

It's no wonder people are upset over some of this tax talk when they're as insipidly stupid as you.