I was emailing a colleague and mentioned how eye-opening (for me, at least) Evan Sayet's piece "How Modern Liberals Think..." was; my colleague then replied with:
"Interesting. I agree with most republicans on social issues. But not economic and environmental. They want to eliminate middle.class.thru tax breaks to rich and elimination of aid to working families. Do not be fooled. You will always do worse financially under a republican, unless you get into the million dollar club."
Is he right?
how would I know I don't have a job
Well, i'm still a dishwasher, so...... poor as hell.
You cannot actually tax the rich. The only way to bee rich in this world is having a business with high consumer base and demand. Therefore the rich can always just include any tax got put on them into the price of the thing they sell.
Your "colleague" is an idiot.
Government "aid" to working families is done through cutting taxes, not adding more tax revenue to the treasury. All that does is allow the govt. to mishandle YOUR resources.
Point out that the US has historically been conservative leaning and has one of the richest middle classes in the world.
Point out democrats have been systematically benefiting singles and those without families on government assistance leaving less for the middle class. Also, that the democrats will never ever deal with this issue because that's their voter base, so the only way to deal with it is voting Republican.
Make a case democrats systematically devalue labor, because they do, while pretending they don't with minimum wage hikes where after they devalue labor they make it illegal to hire labor under a certain price making labor even less valuable to employers, that primarily benefit the young and disabled.
Point out the Republicans tax breaks help make up for the increased cost of labor due to immigration restrictions. The Democrats want to systematically increase cost of living and deflate wages by flooding cheap labor that need homes into the country. They go to the extent of turning a blind eye to illegal immigration.
Point out he's retarded if he thinks the repub platform is better only after you hit 1 mil.
Republicans are retarded on the environment and Trump is single handedly stopping global action on climate change when China seems willing to come to the table and US + China are like half of global GHG emissions.
No.
Tax breaks work. The only people who argue against this are people who are convinced having money or a business turns you into Scrooge McDuck and you will fuck everyone over if big brother doesn't force you to play nice by taxing you out the ass so they can squander money on bullshit. Ironically they never seem themselves as the bad guys even if they are rich, own business, and rather than compete fairly decide to wield litigation like a cudgel to get their way.
They are hypocrites and parasites.
>implying all your private institutions (ie. healthcare) that every other rational country runs publicly don't already grossly mishandle resources
muh libertarian autist spotted
/thread
Blanket statements like this are 14y/o-autist-tier. Tax breaks can work occasionally but certainly not in every situation. The same can be said for the government stimulating the economy (OMG BUT MUH SOCIALISM). Read an economics textbook retard.
Well I have the same stance as your friend. Give incetitives to clean and efficient energy, raise the minimum wage and kill all niggers.
I don't know the reputation that state run institutions have in canada, but in the United States " state run" is synonymous with inefficiency and wasteful spending. Our institutions are notoriously bad. I dont think privatizing everything is a solution, but I think we should at least evaluate what can and should be privatized.
Yep. Politics is like that in every major democratic country with two main parties. One works for the leeches at the bottom, one for the leeches at the top, middle class gets dogpiled.
Hence the republicans trying to run yo quiro taco Jeb! to court a replacement population instead of protecting the lower middle class from aggressive wage cuts. Their preferred constituents didn't want to pay retail for gardening and maid services.
Trump changed the game a bit by doing something, but the party itself hasn't changed at all.
But aren't wind farms a bit noisey?
Basically
>republicans don't want to take your money and give it to lazy niggers so they bad
Yes. They're also relatively shit.
Nuclear>Hydro>Geo-thermal>coal>>>wind>>>>>>solar
Nah, I would rather get a nice government job or handout than whatever the rich people would waste their money on, it's empirically proven that governments know best where to put money in order to get sustainable growth and prosperity.
>he thinks welfare helps working families
>he thinks tax cuts only help millionaires
>he thinks republicans aren't just democrats-lite
>he agrees with republicans on social issues, which shouldn't even be involved anywhere in government
Literally economically illiterate
Well, it's simple then.
Don't let the rich be rich.
Make it so if a big project has to start people must socialize. It forces the hand of evolution.
>Is he right?
No. The primary pressure on the middle class has come from free trade and immigration, both of which hold down wages. This pushes people at the bottom end of the middle class into poverty, and prevents most others from making upward gains. Republicans and Democrats have both supported those policies.
While tax breaks do tend to benefit wealthier people more, that's only because they tend to pay more taxes overall. Many tax cuts also benefit the middle class. The mortgage interest deduction, in particular, primarily benefits middle class homeowners. To the extent tax policies lead to inequalities like a wealthy person paying 15% of his income in taxes, while his secretary pays 25%, that tends to be due to the very wealthy making their money via investments. We keep taxes on investments low to encourage investment in the economy and job creation, and to protect retirees who live off investment income; both of which are laudable goals.
cont...
The issue of retirees is very significant, because the strongest correlate for wealth in our society is age. People amass wealth over the course of their lives, so they can live off of it during retirement. Over 50% of Americans have a stake in the Stock Market, and most of that is 401Ks. Others are invested in their homes. This is a big part of why we have tax breaks for homeowners and investors; to help people who are saving for the future or trying to live off off those savings.
Another complicating issue is that one of the strongest correlates for income (as opposed to wealth) is hours worked. Most high income earners will work 70-80 hours per week. There is also significant turnover at the top of the earning hierarchy. About 94 percent of Americans who reach the 1% will be there for only a single year. Approximately 99 percent will lose that status within a decade.
Our tax policies tend to favor high earners and the wealthy, because they are structured to reward people who work hard and save for the future. That's not an injustice despite the fact that it leads to inequalities. The Republicans support tax policies which are fair because they reward good behavior. The Democrats, by contrast, support social welfare policies which aid people based on need regardless of their behavior. This means they end up helping undeserving people who are in a bad position because of their own bad behavior.
Raising taxes on people who work hard and save for the future, so you can help people who chronically engage in bad behavior is a grotesque injustice. It's bad for society. If you want a good society; good behavior should be rewarded and bad behavior should be punished. Democrats keep trying to build a "Great Society" by doing the opposite, and that's not going to work.
>believing in man-made climate change
high quality false-flag
If you're gonna raise taxes in employers, which are usually middle class and upper class, they won't be able to employ as many poor people.
In much the same way, raising taxes on consumer goods will make poor people poorer as much as it will other people.
To compensate that with even more taxes spent on aid programmes is just about the dumbest thing in the world, because while it may compensate some of the expenses, it absolutely cannot compensate the lack of employment, and employment is key to the growth of the economy.
A working man makes goods that he can sell for money earned by other working men. That's how it works, the gouvernment can't interject with programmes and expect the same results.
Didn't we tax the rich in this country substantially until the 60's or something? Like 90% on top tiers?
Kind of. Marginal and effective tax rates are different though. Nobody actually had 90% of their money taken, that's retarded.
Forgot pic
Right, but during the "Golden Age" of the 50's, wealthy paid substantially more of their higher end income than now, more than double. Yet we still see people insisting it needs to be lowered.
>be facebook
>offer free product
>make billions off ad revenue and selling user data
>some government actually taxes you
>oh shit i can't raise the price because no-one will use my product because it's a very competitive market
>try and establish a monopoly
>government busts your monopoly and lets more innovative and cheaper alternatives come to market
if there's a will there's a way
So why is Europe collapsing and getting flooded with degenerates?
socialism always fails
see gr8 dep and 2008
capitalism is endless boom
de regulate and win
cancel pensions
cancel contracts
replace lawyers with software
erase case law
end government payouts
taxation is theft
defense and courts
objective law
equality is just, some produce more
engineer and business are what to study
Yes and the federal government spent substantially less on entitlements and more on infrastructure and defense. Also, there was greater GDP growth in the 1960s, after Kennedy cut taxes. The 1950s were a cultural golden age, but not necessarily economically a golden age
>Soviet Union
>Cuba
>China
>Vietnam
All of these are empirical evidence for the superiority of capitalism, because abandoning central planning and opening the market is what stopped the countries from falling back to the 19th century.
You say you have empirical proof for the success of central planning. Please present it.
>Middle class
>Aid
GibsTakers are middle class now??
Also taxing the rich encourages them to move their business elsewhere. Punitive taxes only work with closed borders and no free travel.
Communism basically
Tell you friend he's not a real person and invite him on a helicopter ride.
>it's empirically proven that governments know best
As someone employed by the government for a decade, never say that again.
the post war period is a convenient veil for democrat bs
what about the 30 years leading to war with negative growth and the fed 1913 causing gre8 dep alogn with fdr insane policies?
endless boom capitalism of 1800s should not have been tampered with adn violent unions should have been arrested, and banned
You must masturbate furiously to the idea of being a slave to a corporation.
rich people pay taxes, they just pay very little taxes, which is still more (total) than everyone else.
and its ridiculous to suggest that democrats "tax the rich," they tax the middle class, which they call the rich, while the rich are almost never affected.
>nuclear and coal
>he wants privatized monopoly energy instead of distributed individual and communal access solar, wind, geothermal and hydro
>only one company is able to build power plants
What a ridiculous suggestion.
for
>Don't let the rich be rich.
Yeah, We've had some wars and coup d'etats because of that Ideology, all around the globe.
Tax breaks are a god send for the middle class and our national welfare programs add to the deficet which is 80 trillion when you account for money that will inevitably be owed over the next 15 years. You know how the federal government pays that defecit? Printing money and artificailly controlling the interest rate. This leads to malinvestment and throws us into another financial collapse that fucks no one harder than the middle class who has to invest to pay for retirement. Less government = more money for all
>he trusts private companies not to segregate their area of operations and coordinate to raise prices
enjoying your Comcast stratified american?
>not having an institution for the prevention of corporate monopolies
>not enforcing legislation that keeps the market free
Truly cucked.
>comcast, who is granted a regional monopoly by the state
I wouldnt expect a retarded statist to understand such a thing though