How do I explain to liberals that tax cuts for rich people and corporations are a good thing?

How do I explain to liberals that tax cuts for rich people and corporations are a good thing?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=TruCIPy79w8
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It not good tho

Because less taxes are an incentive for economic growth thus benefiting everybody. Its not that complicated

You tax the rich and no one wants to become rich. No one starts any businesses. No one invests. And the poor get poorer.

Fucking commies.

Didn't exactly work wonders for Bush. And how do you explain years of bitching about the deficit only to now be willing to throw trillions on top of it? In addition to not cutting the budget? While also building a multi-billion dollar wall with a trillion dollar infrastructure plan?

because it means less money for the satanists that run the feds

>money loses all value once it becomes static
>rich people and corporations do not stuff their money under a mattress. they invest it so that their money makes more money. those investments build factories, fund R&D and improve quality of living.
>the government has demonstrated an infinite number of times they are good at only one thing: wasting money
>it follows that less taxes on the rich and corporations will have more net benefit to joe average than if that money was given to the government through taxes

if they can't understand that then it's time for the gas chamber

They aren't. Although we just spend the extra money on gibsmedats to niggers, spics, and degenerates, so might as well let them keep it in our current system.

why do you need someone else to tell you why you believe something?

if you could, you would

You simply start by saying "I'm a retarded cuck that believes corporate marketing propaganda and I like sucking dick."

>You tax the rich and no one wants to become rich.

Dude what. You're arguing we didn't have rich people before Reagan? Most people alive in this country today were around when over half of the one precents income was taxed.

Start with how companies like GE and Comcast pay virtually no tax using loopholes. It's better to lower the rate and eliminate the loopholes and have them end up paying more than otherwise.

>10 trillion onto the deficit

What could go wrong desu

It's called being a right winger. They're all retarded.

>when over half of the one precents income was taxed.
it never was
there were just massive deductions
see the effective tax rate

>no rich people before reagan
I dont see where you made that jump based on what i said

>Didn't exactly work wonders for Bush.
what is that supposed to mean

Keep your government poor and remain free.

Like this:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for lunch and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate lunch in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily lunch by $20.00." So lunch for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat his lunch.

So the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% off).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% off).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% off).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% off).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% off).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% off).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat lunch for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare the amount they got off.

The sixth man said, "I only got $1 off out of the $20 while the tenth man got $10 off!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only got $1 off, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 off, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and told him they they were angry that he got so much off while they each got very little.

The next day the tenth man didn't show up for lunch, so the nine sat down and had their lunchs without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money amongst all of them for even half of the bill!

And that is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the largest benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Whole argument hinges on theory of value = circulation. (Which is true.)

>Government spending is different to corporate and rich people spending because the government "wastes money!" I.e. spends it.

Your argument is flawed. Rich people and corporations may not stuff in their mattresses but the vast majority of it does not go into R+D and re-circulate. It sits in banks or is held in shares.

A person who recieves 700 dollars a week will spend 10% of it immediately. 70% of that during the week and maybe save 20% of it.

80% of what they're earning is re-circulated.

A person earning 1 million a week may spend a couple of grand that day, perhaps 10% during the week for utilities and bills etc and 90% will be held onto and not recirculated. 900,000 will remain idle.

Whatever qualms you have with the government, realize that you have a say in it, which makes it infinitely better than corporations.

You are the master of the government. The government works to serve you. It's why you can vote, why you have elections. You could go run for office right now if you wanted. If you don't like the system, fight to change it.

Corporations are the masters. You have no say in what they do. Vote with your dollar, sure, but you're fucked if they've got a monopoly on you.

Because corporations don't care about your well-being, or happiness. They want your money. Well-being and happiness are potential side effects, but not guaranteed. They will poison you, addict you, shame you, just for a couple more shekels. Don't like something the President does? Or company policies? Too bad, it makes shareholders happy, and they get their paycheque.

giving more to the rich will make the riches lives better, that's the justification but don't pretend that there's any reason for any of that to "trickle down", risky fixed capital investments aren't as attractive as just parking money into safe real-estate or something with little risk

growing the public debt isn't the issue per se, beyond the hypocrisy, the thing is most of this corporate cash is just going to go towards stock buy backs inflating the market moreso

companies only invest and expand when they can make a profit, if wages are stagnating, retail is collapsing, etc, etc you aren't going to get companies investing and hiring but they are just going to gamble on financial markets with any new cash to get a quick safe return

you need a real crash to wipe out all the zombie companies to get things going and those with vested interests don't want that to happen

...

Explains the fetish for authoritarian leaders.

>but the vast majority of it does not go into R+D and re-circulate. It sits in banks or is held in shares.
>sits in banks
who use that money as collateral to loan money out to individuals buying houses, small businesses etc.
>held in shares
the businesses selling those shares use the money to provide goods and services

in neither of those cases is the money sitting there doing nothing

it "should" also give incentive to grow existing small businesses into new medium businesses, and bring existing medium businesses and existing large businesses onto a "fairer" playing field, no?

yes. all that is required for the economy to grow is for money to keep moving, provided value is being gained by the movement of money in each transaction.

when the government takes money and gives it to someone else no good or service has been created or provided. money has simply been taken from one and given to another; the transaction had not added value to the person paying. hence why as much money should be kept out of the hands of government as possible.

>Don't like something the President does? Or company policies?
Then I stop buying their product.
Don't like what the govt is doing? Better wait 4 more years while they still tax you

Tax cuts for companies are great, since companies pass the cost on the consumer. IMO personal top brackets should be much higher tho and capital gains eliminated and treated as income. Superrich companies help the economy grow, superrich people dont

>You are the master of the government. The government works to serve you
the government works to serve the 51%. a more correct statement is the government works to serve whoever is funding election campaigns. that's because 'government' is a nebulous term that really means nothing. individual human beings make choices. 'governments' do not.

>Vote with your dollar, sure, but you're fucked if they've got a monopoly on you.
name a single monopoly that was created WITHOUT state interference. i'll do your job for you. there are exactly 2 examples in all of modern history
>the new york stock exchange
>de beers mining company
the fact that you throw the term 'monopoly' around so loosely tells me you know nothing about what you're talking about

governments are afforded the right of arbitrary enforcement. corporations are forced to act within the limits of law

leaf/10

Tax cuts for only the richest create monopolies thus making it impossible to start your own business or ever getting rich. Thus making the COUNTRY rich, but the PEOPLE poor.

In my flagrelated only rich people stay rich and make it impossible for anyone else to do business. Thus we have two brands of everything and no competition. This doesn't turn out good for the buyer in the long run because they could always make the product shitty but we'd still have to buy it.

It hasn't come to that thanks to strict product regulations, but it will inevitably happen.

It's the natural law. A theocratic Plutocracy. How it was always meant to be.

I hope you're right, because it looks like its happening whether we like it or not.

You pretty much don't. Because the concept of "trickle-down" economics has been almost completely discredited. On the other hand, you could point out that whatever you subsidize (pay benefits for), you get more of. And if you subsidize poverty and laziness, you'll get generational poverty and laziness.

So the fact that the trickle-down model is a dumb meme, does NOT mean we need to tax everyone to death to create a shitty welfare state for niggers and meth-heads.

Good analogy. Have a (you).

It's alright if they invest it in the country.
Usually that doesn't happen thought, the money goes into financial speculation and abroad.
Middle class/poor people are more likely to spend it on domestic goods.

>In fact, they might start eating overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Except that investing overseas is already more profitable even ignoring taxes.

The liberals are the ones defending this you dumb murican.

Well put.

>t. Accountant

Underage fag detected. Bush cut taxes using the neocon logic OP is regurgitating that lower taxes automatically means big GDP gains. In Bush's case it didn't really work.

I think there is a rationale for cutting taxes, but claims that economic growth will offset the effect on the deficit is laughable. I am dissappointed he is putting this forward instead of true tax reform (i.e closing loopholes, deregulation). This just benefits the Elites.

>de beers mining company
The eternal Anglo strikes again

You might find this interesting
youtube.com/watch?v=TruCIPy79w8

time for the elites to pay the head tax

Something else that has to be figured into the U.S. economy is the fact that a vast amount of money is leaving the U.S. This is do to illegal immigrants sending their money back to Mexico. This is the reason the Mexican Govt is getting involved with U.S. immigration reform.
Deny it all you want but this is quickly becoming an issue for the U.S. economy.