What's the purpose of taxing the rich? aren't they the ones trying to create jobs?

what's the purpose of taxing the rich? aren't they the ones trying to create jobs?

Other urls found in this thread:

pgpf.org/budget-basics/who-pays-taxes
anyforums.com/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

stop making threads canada

really make ya think

Buddy, i'm right wing asf, but you have to admit, the whole "trickle down" economics thing has proven to be extremely ineffective.

It's my main problem with centre-right conservatives and libertarians/ancaps. The only thing they're 'conserving' is wealth inequality.

How many jobs zuckerberg will creat with his stash of 50 billions and more importantly, in which country?

a 2x2 facebook tech support booth in india, of course

Taxation is theft.

Yes, look at all the jobs Mariah Carey and Notch have created.

>create jobs
>pay dick
>no consumers

Really made me think.

>Mariah Carey
>employs shitty producers and lyricists to help her make music
>Notch
>employs programmers, engineers, and other fags to help with his shitty game

Okay.

She's hot in a housewife kinda way

Yeah fuck roads, ports, airports, Internet.

Disproportionate beneficiaries of societal structures.

maybe 4

Never understood the point of those cigarette-holder-extender thingers. Goofy as fuck.

so about twelve jobs in total

taxing the only the poor will make them poorer and as a by product the whole country poorer but only taxing the rich will result in something similar.

she employs hundreds of people including make up artists, hair dressers, maids, producers, interior decorators, etc just to name a few

some extenders have filters, all of them stop the smell from getting in your fingers.

agreed, gay as fuck

>trying

so whats stopping them

>inb4 "government"

Obvious troll is obvious troll. If you actually owned a business, you would know your business is taxed separately from yourself. Taxing a business hurts job growth, taxing individuals, not so much. I support corporate tax cuts, but think the top .1% deserved to have shit taxed out of them. It won't hurt consumption, they already have everything they could want and then some.

>implying she doesn't also employ make up artists, hair people, dancers and other shit.
>Implying Notch's studio doesn't have hundreds of employees if not more

Stop posting. You're making a fool out of yourself.

because money is power and when a small minority of people have too much money they have to much power, everything can be bought,wealth is monarchy now. Plus they dont create jobs, the working class get scraps and do everything. If working classes dont consolidate and unionize to protect their own interests they just get fucked. people are ownly as loyal as the world allows. So steps must be made to ensure the right choices are made for society. Keep a cap on power to avoid tyranny and keep the poor from being SO downtrodden that they turn to communism and create tyranny. OH and thouse ciggarette extenders are to keep ladies fingers from yellowing.

low taxes for everyone is the best tbqh

yeah but why would you want to tax them? that transfers power from the 1% to the fucking government. how do we convince the 1% to hand wealth directly to the people?

>Muh roads
Free market would have come up with more efficient and faster transportation system

The rich really don't create many jobs at all unless they start manufacturing or service companies.
And of course manufacturing goes straight to 3rd world countries.

What most rich people do is invest their billions into managed funds so that their money passively generates more money.

...

If only we had a way to influence what the government spends that money on. Maybe if there was a way we could choose who makes decisions and creates policy.

You got me stumped leaf, I got nothing.

They are the only ones effective at creating jobs. Small businesses are only lauded as the backbone of our economy because there are so many people trying and failing to get a foothold in the business world. Small businesses are big in numbers, but are not the best in creating high-paying, secure jobs.

This has nothing to do with "trickle down" economics, it's just economics. You tax the only job creators in existence you get less investment. The point isn't to create jobs, but to free up labor to do more productive things with the introduction of capital investment.

Inequality =/= poverty.

Inequality is not a bug in the free market, it's a fucking feature and a damned necessary one for good reasons.

>the reason i'm a loser with neon pink hair is because someone else is rich, REEEEEEEEE

You can't reason with leftist trash.

>And of course manufacturing goes straight to 3rd world countries.

Those jobs being created don't count?

So where are the jobs?

No? The rich are trying to get richer. It will often involve making jobs. If they gave a shit at all about the people of a country or the country itself they wouldn't seek out tax havens or ship their jobs overseas. Then they spend some of the profit on brainwashing the average Joe into fearing things like socialism and being corporate drones.

Don't have any problem with rich people because rich people earned their keep or their parents earned it for them, that's fine. Don't expect me to respect you if you abandon my country and my people though.

Im for taxing rich people, but I am against taxing rich companies

They were made to keep a person's fingers from smelling like cigarettes.

>Free market would have come up with more efficient and faster transportation system

holy fuck can't deny this

>hmm it's almost like burning fossil fuels and constantly rubbing against the ground is bad for machines
>i hear magnets can levitate things, let's work on that

your fingers won't smell

>highest amount of taxes collected ever
>worst labor force since 70s
>gdp in shitter

Its a progressive meme

so why hasn't it

inequality is wonderful.
> waiter! 5 mcmansions for my millionaire newfriend.
the obscene "i own your government and I tell them what laws to write" inequality of today is not wonderful.

Cigarettes are nasty as fuck. They stain and stank up your fingers. Cigarette holders are more lady-like so her madam doesn't have to get dirty fingers when smoking.

It also cools down and filters the smoke, making it more palatable, and of course, it's aesthetic.

I regrettably had a cigarette with my brother last summer, and my fingers smelled like ass for the entire week. It's a very potent odour.

You're free to renounce your citizenship at any time and stop living with the benefits of taxation

Because producing more than you consume should be punished, and consuming more than you produce should be rewarded

I wrote this answer a few months ago on a t_d post.
Roads aren't a tricky issue. Your assumption rests on the idea of them being the most 'efficient' mode of transportation, when they are not. Once you realize that roads compete with other modes of transportation the question 'who builds the roads' will be answered by 'we need no roads'.

For instance transport by rails is cheaper and faster. Transport by water ways
is more energy efficient and transport by air probably way more flexible in
terms of destinations. All of these alternatives have not been sufficiently developed up until now because of the ubiquity of competing 'free' roads.

without public money roads become expensive to build and maintain with little prospect of profit - so why do you think there should be roads in the first place? ... and why would anyone pay for using a road when he can use a helicopter or (cargo) zeppelin?

>Muh if only the world started with everyone understanding and implementing the tenents of free market capitalism
>muh everyone is born equal

There's an oven where your head belongs

>Buddy, i'm right wing asf, but you have to admit, the whole "trickle down" economics thing has proven to be extremely ineffective.

Probably because no economist right wing or otherwise suggested that trickle down economics as a policy

>It's my main problem with centre-right conservatives and libertarians/ancaps. The only thing they're 'conserving' is wealth inequality.

Neither of those groups condone corporate welfare.

Also inequality conserves wealth inequality. It's a fact of life.

this is the single most stupid oxymoronic simplification I've read in an entire day wasted on Sup Forums
fuck your pompous stupidity.

this is also my cue to quit Sup Forums for the evening.

If the rich would pay, then i strongly advocate (moderatley) taxing them, or at least setting up some sort of scheme where every dollar they invest in business expansion/increased productivity or another small business is a dollar less they have to pay in tax.

I however think the rich must be strongly regulated from either schemeing to become the government or to ruin the society upon which it governs, this includes ensuring trends in media, luxury items and fashion dont promote degeneracy or counter it.

If you renounce your citizenship from the US they will tax the fuck out of you before you leave. It may be better in the long run, but it shows that taxation isn't a "social contract"

The jobs exist anyway, the rich just insinuate themselves between the buyer & the seller & take all the profit for themselves, like uber or airbnb.

"job creators" is a neologism. It did not exist before your neocons realized how useful fox news is.

Only white countries barely make the cut for a scoiety in which a significant number of people understand free market capitalism. Sad to see that not even one white country is even considering this economical model

>Rich people don't pay taxes!!

That's not how it works though. What rich people put their wealth into gets taxed as capital gains generally, which in the US, is significantly lower than corporate or individual tax rates. They already have the boon of benefiting from the enormous stimulus we've had the past 8 years and collecting money from that. It's self-fulfilling wealth, they are getting richer because they were already rich to begin with. They don't produce anything, they just reap the rewards of their wealth.

>what's the purpose of taxing the rich?
Money for gimmiedats

>aren't they the ones trying to create jobs?
No, they used to be the government interfered with the economy so much that now hiring people is a last resort, as there's so much liability that comes with it.

this

embrace communism or fuck off

The real problem isn't the 250k+ crowd, but the 2 million+ crowd. it's not the 1%, but the .1%. Those are the ones that can afford to pay tax lawyers and use tax havens to benefit, while the doctors and lawyers are stuck with high tax rates, but aren't rich enough to duck out of taxes.

Misleading partition. The top 1% pays 33.3% total. When you say 250000+ pay 51.6 you mean 250000's pay 25%, and the top0.0001 parcentpay much more, so that it averages to 51%
pgpf.org/budget-basics/who-pays-taxes

nice digits tho senpai

Less taxes = less money in circulation = less money for the lower class to spend.

Problem is, until the world reaches the point where all countries are developed enough that there is no real default place to send jobs to for cheap labor, most jobs are never created in the countries that need them.

In short; young adults who need jobs are out-competed by would-be-retirees who have a ton of work experience because they can't retire, newer jobs are either being automated or exported to other countries because giving these college students a living wage for these new jobs is 2expensive4corporate, and both Millennials and Boomers/GenXers can't stop flinging shit at each other long enough to realize that they're both fucked.

Ofc it's a bit more nuanced than that, but if I wanted to detail I could probably do a decently-sized essay on it (or point to someone who already has).

Because you are secretly creating unemployment to keep the market value of labour low and pay the work you exploit less. The state wants that nice sweet shekel back.

>this is the single most stupid oxymoronic simplification I've read in an entire day wasted on Sup Forums

Doing what I just criticized is the oxymoron.
Of course its simplified, abstracted, and not the entire picture. But it's my business how much I talk about a subject on an anonymous shitposting board

>fuck your pompous stupidity.
>this is also my cue to quit Sup Forums for the evening.

Someone pointed out an obvious fault in my political theory, better leave before I'm tempted to reconsider something

Which is why the political class only talk about income tax brackets that don't affect their wallstreet friends who sit on fortunes of capital gains

Why would they? We're talking about taxes and job creation in one country. They're being taxed in one country and exporting jobs to another.

>so why hasn't it
Violence.

When you use violence to take taxes from people and do things like hire businesses to build roads, you not longer have a free market.

Transportation businesses that can compete in a free market will have the best and most innovative ideas win out. But when one industry such as cars is subsidized by the government the alternatives cannot complete.

This is nothing specific to roads, it happens in every industry the government subsidizes.

This ugly little coal burning goblin belongs on /r9k/

>implying they're not "creating" jobs for robots and pocketing the rest of that money solely for the purpose of making more money
>implying they're spending their own money to create jobs and not raising capital through lenders and investors
>implying they don't have access to financial and tax professionals to find every loophole available to them to avoid paying their fair share of taxes

who is she

Do people not know how to wash their hands in Canada?

Eliza

>yes, good stupid citizen! The rich shouldn't be required to support society like the rest of us because they're all special! Surely they're the ones responsible for everything and that would all come crashing down if they had to fulfill their responsibilities to their nation!

You're free to go live in Somalia.

That's bupkes in proportion to the wealth they have, assuming that the rich really are producing jobs because they are richer.

Yeah it works really well for Somalia.

Not an argument.

>implying taxes weren't much, much, much higher in the 60s

never post her again

isnt there a surname or some shit

who-is-she

And yet, look at the percentage of income for each bracket. Taxes used to be a lot higher.
>t. someone who knows a lot of people who were alive when rich people actually paid a ton in income taxes without calling it communism

are you the canadian who had a ama in some thread about your abortion experience?

I had never seen this photo before. I guess they all smoked back then.

>actual crack addict
>housewife

That's the thing... they never create jobs. They ship jobs oversees or automate to save money. They only want to concentrate more money in their hands.

If they want to take on the responsibility of 'job creator' then they are also at fault when there are no jobs.

WTF Germany.
Eat shit.

I agree, and to make things worse they use said wealth to destroy our society and spread social rot, only to run away when the country they ruined gets ruined a bit too much so to speak.

However, until we can find a way to tax the rich and make sure they dont keep hiding their money or avoiding taxation, we are going to have to think of ways to extract money from them.

Taxing consumption (which will also affect consumers btw), and (no more than 20 - 30%) government stakes in big businesses is one way we can get them to pay taxes.

Who's this semen demon

Ever tried to smoke with gloves on?

>yes goim, i create the jobs. i don't need to pay my share for the goods and services taxes provide even when i use them just as much as anyone else

/r9k/ and Sup Forums camwhore. went by the name eliza, real name ciara. she's like 16, and a crack addict