Everyone was talking about taxing the rich and shit and im just like "uhhh you know they create jobs right" and they like "wuut" and i say "yeah if we didn't tax them they would create more" and they like "say whaaaaat?" and I said "yeeeah" and they like "why should we have to pay tax and they shouldnt?" i said "well how many jobs do u create" they like "uhhhhhh" but still don't get it
How do i explain them this
Other urls found in this thread:
nytimes.com
twitter.com
I'm sorry to highjack this thread but you people must be working at taco bell to not understand that $100,000 is not a lot of money. I mean come on, gold card memberships, thousand dollar plates of sushi COMPED. Money means nothing
Ask if someone should pay more for the same thing?
they
already
pay
for
everything
I want the rich taxed at 0%
>"yeah if we didn't tax them they would create more"
Literally prove it.
so? make them pay more, they don't need what they have and they don't use it to create jobs whatsoever
Libs just point to the debt Reagan accumulated through his tax cuts and say trickle down economics doesn't work.
If you start taxing richest, they'll find a better country. That's why it's pointless.
To clarify my statement, they've seen prior evidence on why it doesn't work and that's what they are going off of.
It's common sense
Who cares about the debt? LOL, Fuck Liberals
How the rich spends money is different than how the poor spends money. the poor tends to spend money on consumption goods, like tvs and beer, while the rich tends to invest it, such as in stocks or factories. Neither is innately wrong, but in general we need to build factories more than we need drink beer.
You lower the tax and streamline/eliminate the loopholes/deductions.
That makes actually paying the tax at a lower rate more likely than paying no tax at all.
You want them to give you money.
You don't want them to avoid giving you any money.
building factories without beer. You can't separate those.
WAit, now that you put it like that i think the rich should be taxed. I don't want rich people investing money buying stocks and shit.
Liberal here.
Tax cuts and spending programs are the same thing on the governments balance sheets.
You cut taxes to incentivize industry without having to ask voters for a tax increase.
Arbitrarily cutting taxes for rich people doesn’t help though and there are somethings that government is better at than the private markets and somethings, like food, need to be subsidized by the government in order to keep those products accessible and farms viable.
The naked free market is pretty much feudalism and that means only born classes are capable of proposing innovation, which destroys international competitiveness, not to mention the quality of life.
Without things like the estate tax, you get consecutive generations of heirs building their fortunes on millions and billions in interest payments alone without actually doing anything.
Huge chucks of GDP wind up going to pay people for being rich, while everyone else has to fight in the armies to defend their assets, it’s a bull shit system, fuck trickle on me economics
>how percentages work
cool
The problem with the tax the rich thing is that they own companies.
Let's say Schlomo McShekelstein sold a product for a dollar each. Now, taxes on his company have gone up to 33%.
Now Schlomo McShekelstein sells his product for a dollar fifty. He still makes a buck each though.
Because the real person paying those taxes is you.
hahahhaha.
COMPED SUSHI
>Be rich asshole
>Turn proffits of at least 300% on everything I sell
>Pay 40% of that to the workers at most.
ehehehehe but it's alright you see, I need this money for research purposes and uhhh, creating more jobs. Yeah, that's what this new automation project we're about to implement is, goyim. :^) Here, have an extra 20% in taxes, you earned it!
Why tax more on the rich? Why should they even pay more in taxes than any common Joe? If anything you would want to encourage people to become rich by reducing the taxes by %. We need a equal tax.
LOL rich people just accumulate money and keep it in savings or invest it, which they're only taxed at 15% on. Which means they pay way less than the normal ~30% that most people pay.
Fact is, it's an unfair system in terms of percentage of tax paid.
>Without things like the estate tax, you get consecutive generations of heirs building their fortunes on millions and billions in interest payments alone without actually doing anything.
Estate tax doesn't impact corporate scions. and trust fund babies. They usually don't inherit large sums of taxable assets. The real inheritance is either controlling shares of a company, or a trust that just gives them an allowance. Once again, it only fucks the upper middle class. By putting an estate tax into play, you're pretty much ensuring no upward mobility is possible on a generational scale. You're just forcing a reset with every generation.
I think they mean tax the shit out of global conglomerate companies.
Yes in that case it's not a good thing. You force them to take offshore tax loopholes over keeping production here.
Taxing some ceo that walks away with 100 million dollars at the end of the year. Igaf if they take %35 of that. But the downside is it doesn't help anything. It's a drop in the bucket.
RICH PEOPLE DONT HIRE PEOPLE DIRECTLY, YOU FAGS. BUSINESSES DO AND THEY ARE GETTING CUTS.
Ahahahahaha go fuck yourself, kike boomer. A new set of golf clubs isn't an investment.
What is wrong with savings or investments, stop being so jealous. Accumulate if they want, but it is better to invest. It like you see these people with all this stuff and it is just "stuff". Why force them to give to the Gov. more then you have?
>How do I explain To Liberals that Lowering Taxes on the Rich Creates Jobs
It doesn't. The Laffer curve is wishful thinking to help billionaires keep their billions while middle class people pay the tax bills...
I personally know a legit Billionaire and he doesn't give two shits if you tax him %35. The problem is it doesn't change anything for our current economical situation. So you're essentially just stealing from them for no reason.
Ask them what would happen to jobs if you raised taxes to 100 percent.
The estate tax doesn’t effect the first 5 million dollars you leave, and after that it’s 35%.
If you died and left your kid 10 million dollars, they would get over 7 million, which is way more money than most people have.
If you leave your kid over 5 million dollars, and they can’t make anything out of it, they didn’t deserve that 5 million anyways, it’s called the free market bro
>food, need to be subsidized by the government in order to keep those products accessible and farms viable
Subsidies for farms has resulted in inefficient farms still being profitable. As in farms that hire Mexicans to do the work, essentially transferring money to Mexico which could have stayed in the US.
Without subsidies you could have instead promoted higher efficiency in farming which would mean more automation, such as what is done on grape farms with auto-pickers that you drive over the grape bushes.
Subsidies may make sense in some areas, but farming isn't one.
>You're just forcing a reset with every generation
Estate tax sucks dick
>How do I explain To Liberals that Lowering Taxes on the Rich Creates Jobs
But that doesn't you fukcing retard.
Explain how people who actually do something for society instead of relying on the government shouldn't have to pay taxes. Unlike most parasites.
Schlomo McShekelstein is gonna be dissapointed to find out the minimum wage is keeping up with his bullshit, average Joe is gonna stop buying his shitty product. Schlomo McShekelstein should have realized that jewish trickery only works with inflation!
>Without subsidies you could have instead promoted higher efficiency in farming which would mean more automation, such as what is done on grape farms with auto-pickers that you drive over the grape bushes.
>t. Mr. has never worked on a farm
Higher efficiency than 1000+ acre corn and soybean fields? They are essentially automated already. And that's where the majority of subsidies go (mostly for corn ethanol production).
Which is why the fed is owned by jews.
If you raise taxes to 100% how much tax income could you have?
$0 because people would just stop paying. I stopped paying. I only get to keep about half of whatvI make after federal income, property, and sales taxes
We are slaves. Do not buy homes inside of the city or even the suburbs. Move far away from school districts. Save all of your money. Become accustomed to living FAR below your means.
Having a $1000 truck payment literally makes you a to posessions and btw the dealership that sold you the truck literally bought it for 1/3rd of what you paid for it you punk. They have you over a barrel pumping your asshole full of cum
One word, just one word: Fucking communism.
Where do you think that money will come from?
The millionaires and billionaires have:
>1
Cash on hand. It takes no risk to hold on to this, and the only thing that can eat away at it baring taxes is inflation.
>2
Various enterprises, ventures, investments, operations that they wish to use to generate cash on hand. There are some risks associated with this, and what can eat away at them, barring taxation, include competition, market fluctuations, bad PR, lawsuits, operating cost increases, etc.
>Ok so what faggot?
Let's say you bump up the tax rate. What do you think richfags would do: take some of the COH they already have safely squirreled away and invest more of it at some level of risk in hope of making a return that would compensate for the lost tax dollars? No. They would
>A
Raise prices of their products and/or costs of services
>B
Lower wages/hours/#people hired
>And/or C
Sell off some of their positions, sell some of the equity they have in various businesses and properties, liquidate operations, etc.
>But it's only a couple % goy
Yes, a change in fiscal policy on a micro level has macro effects. Imagine every large privately owned firm increasing prices .01% across the board for every 1% increase in income taxes if the owners, or laying off .05% of their labor force for every 1% increases in taxes, or closing off some of the less profitable operations as tax increases loom, etc.
Farmers still have all the incentive to make the most out of their land, tgey can’t survive on subsidies alone.
There have been tons of advances in agriculture, from GMOs to chemicals.
The real resistance comes from ecological concerns, which are valid too. But Americans expect a clean environment to interact with, we don’t just hack down forests, dump waste into the town water, and shit in the streets.
We could do all the stuff the more “efficient” areas do, and many farmers and agricultural companies lobby politicians very hard to get that stuff changed here, but people like fishing too and don’t want nitrates and algae blooms to poison fisheries and things like that.
But user trickle down doesn’t work
If we want an equal country we need laws that treat everyone equally so no welfare no trickle down
Bump
Communism
Then how did Obama double the debt while having relatively high tax rates on the rich?
>acknowledging an argument makes it true
Really makes me think
Because they actually do something for society..
I honestly fail to understand your logic here.
It's not about lowering taxes for the rich. It's about lowering taxes for EVERYONE and not wasting taxpayer money on stupid feel good bullshit.
It's not hard to imagine now. Throughout Obama's presidency leaders of corporations warned they would continue to leave if they kept raising taxes. Just go watch any of the public sessions for yourself. Some even where throwing their arms up in front of Congress saying "we are done of it goes up anymore". They close up shop in the US and produce offshore/import.
It's really not hard to understand. It didn't help us at all to do that. At least if they are here. Thousands still keep jobs. Those thousands can change the look and crime of single neighborhood or whole town. Just look at China you assholes. They are doing well that with your jobs. There truly is no reason for us to not make any of that shit here. You name it, from your phone and all the way down to your yearly firework purchase. Can all be made here.
How are the rich not parasites? They are basically living sources of money that do nothing but ensure their pot keeps growing until the day they die, after which it will be passed along to their children to do the same.
Have fun trying to make that happen without the low and middle class doing the actual work you stupid piece of fuck kike.
>Tax cuts and spending programs are the same thing on the governments balance sheets.
Macro101 "I've read Cliff's Notes on Keynes' General Theory" fag detected.
Yes, in the short term they appear to be the same. Analogously, if both Blockbuster and Netflix happened to be worth $1B dollars at the time, and your conglomerate bought one or the the other, at the time of purchase there would be no B.S. differences. The problem is confounding variables
>Which action would be better in terms of long term revenue streams
A tax cut may produce more incomes at greater levels at the individual and corporate level. Or it can go into stagnant capital. A spending program may go into public infrastructure that could facilitate taxable commerce. Or it can go into bridges to nowhere. The problem isn't the policy used, it's the analysis of which policy is used and who benefits from it. Both issues are compounded by Spics, Niggers and Jews that use the vote and the K street to tailor policy toward their own ends, in contradistinction to policy that helps us all.
epic meme
You don't. You demand they explain how a two term black president who promised to make the rich pay their fair share actually made the rich more prosperous than they've ever been. You demand they explain how the Democrat party gets away with labeling Republicans the party of the rich when nearly all of the richest people in America are leftists who support Democrats. You demand they explain how the evil banks and top 1% are more flush with cash than ever before after Obama and the democrats backed Occupy Wallstreet. You demand they explain how Obama could sign executive orders to bypass laws and let illegals stay but couldn't make the banks accountable for the financial crisis in 2008 even though the democrats controlled Congress and the White House.
>rich create jobs
>tax cuts for rich means even more jobs.
No, that's not how it works. Tax cuts for the rich mean that IF THEY DO NOTHING DIFFERENT they will have more money after taxes so they can buy another/better car or take more golfing vacations.
There is absolutely NOTHING about tax cuts for the rich that automatically means more jobs.
And for the rich who do try to expand and create new jobs, they still have no incentive to pay more than market wages for the new jobs. With millions of illegals we still have suppressed wages.
Environmental golobalists are cucking us so hard. They impose regulation after regulation and demand we tax the corporate companies to death. If there ever was an example of disgusting Jew behaviour, that's it.
When the price of labor becomes higher than the demand, it's not worth investing in it
Notice people used to get paid, albeit low, a wage for something as simple as keeping a store clean?
You used to be able to hire teenagers to do odd jobs. That's literally not possible now
More to the point, businesses have turnover and giving them more money to invest in their business would spur growth which would necessitate hiring more employees to meet demand
However, taxes are much farther removed from employee hiring than things like minimum wage, workers comp, and various insurances and employee regulations
Companies would love to be able to hire swathes of people to find the best, but they can't afford it, so they use warped measures like degrees at the higher volumes and just taking on the chance of getting fucked over at the lower ends, since you have to give these people so much more responsibility than before
They create jobs because they buy more luxury stuff, they don't throw it in the stock market or invest it like democucks want you to think
You're disgusting
Sure, so by the same token, should the poor get tax cuts? After all you can use all the same arguments in that regard.
Ofc they dont pay more than market value, that'd be retarded. If there's millions of illegals supressing wages, it seems you've found the problem.
Bequeathed capital rarely maintains after 3 generations. I'm no longer a lolberg, but and it makes no sense to make Marxian arguments either.
>Also re: food
Antitrust laws keep farms from cartelizing to set prices, communally negotiate costs, and enforce various labor standards. This is opposed to most types of labor, who enjoy government-recognized unions. The federal government subsidy program is simply doing for the farmers what they would have done in a free market: setting general price floors and caps across the industry, and applying subsidies (which instead would have simply been profit margin) where need be.
>They create jobs because they buy more luxury stuff
So average people being able to buy more average stuff wouldnt create more jobs?
How hard is it to understand that lower n taxes with no loop holes is actually a tax increase for the rich? Loop holes allowed many to pay zero.
Don't forget that according to the left small business owners and farmers are "rich."
Uh yes, they also still make the same amount when they offshore production. Arguably more.
You cant separate corporations and person in your mind can't you. Tax cuts most certainly means production moved here. Not to mention they can grow. It's not like we won't have to bribe them to come back now after people like you drove them off. Sorry, I want our nig population to slow down with the chimpery
Tax-cuts don't always equate to economic growth. Government spending to invest in it's population (such as with infrastructure and education spending) improves the economic-well being to an extent. There's also extent where taxes could be too excessive and economic growth is stagnating where tax cuts make sense (the case for it in the early 80's is very argueable as being needed; current contemporary examples would be France right now where economic growth is pretty low and stagnation and unemployment is pretty high, where it makes sense to cut the tax burden).
In America's case, the total effective taxes are relatively modest, if not already low. Growth is doing well, unemployment is already pretty low, now is the time where tax increases would make sense to fund a new infrastructure project.
Are you happy with the higher taxes 8n your country?
Are tgee a lot of peoole mad for the high taxes in your country?
Why?
I need a tax cut, as I am rich enough to pay someone to mow my lawn. I'm a fucking JOB CREATOR!
>$100,000 is not a lot of money
confirmed. all rich people should donate 100,000 to taxes. since it's nothing to them
>Deepest recession in 80 years
>Years of war spending without a way to pay for it
>Bush era tax cuts continued into Obama presidency = bigger deficit
>Stimulus (which actually did create jobs)
Basically the economy/govt spending is a hard ship to turn around. Bush inherited a budget surplus and fucked it up, culminating in the economic collapse of 2008-2009.
Notice the new proposal drops those paying 10% to zero? How is that not helping out the poor? Not giving money directly and fulfilling the requirement for full on wealth redistro? You know middlemen just steal from all these welfare accounts.
Are there* a lot of..
Come here to my country and see how much people on the public sector produce
> leaders of corporations warned they would continue to leave if they kept raising taxes.
What are you even talking about? The corporate tax rate has been the same for decades.
Spike their latte with lots of ritalin first.
The only thing that creates jobs is DEMAND
Lowering corporate taxes doesn't increase demand, it just increases profit
Remember, it's not the government's money. Taxed income belongs to the person who earned it. Lower taxes means you get to keep more of what already rightfully belongs to you. Also: nearly half of the nation pays no income taxes. If you are successful enough to be taxed at a high rate it just means you contribute instead of leeching off the system.
I'm a liberal who voted for Obama and Shillary, but this is actually the most convincing argument to use, OP. The biggest flaw of mainstream Democrats is that they are lapdogs for corporate America and Wall Street.
Those profits will be reinvested into the business for expansion, which will create jobs for people who will be paid a salary by that business, who will need to spend their salary on products, which creates demand.
>yfw it actually just causes them to invest their money in real estate and other such asset bubbles because it's more reliable
>yfw many US companies are sitting on tons of cash that they can't find profitable uses for
>How do I explain To Liberals that Lowering Taxes on the Rich Creates Jobs
First, you make sure you're talking to someone in their teens.
Because everyone else remembers the 2008 Recession after 8 years of Repubs lowering taxes, and the 1990 recession after 10 years of Repubs lowering taxes, and knows the argument is full of shit.
Does it really though? I want lower taxes because I want more money in my pocket. I don't give a fuck about anyone else.
Also, when we talk about taxing the rich, who you really want to tax are the top 0.1%. Most tax revenue is taken from the 1-0.1% range, iirc. The 0.1% have enough money to just hire accountants to hide their wealth offshore, whereas the 1-0.1% are basically just high-end salaried workers like doctors.
No it doesn't. It goes up to 12%.
Sauce:
nytimes.com
So we should hold our countries hostage to the whims of internationalists rich fucks?
cuck
>Those profits will be reinvested into the business for expansion,
What planet do you live on spaceman
Those go straight to the shareholders
The only thing that increases jobs is DEMAND
Many countries already offer massive incentives for companies.
It is far more advantageous to do business in America because the US is the world capital in consumerism. Plus the US government makes it illegal for certain imports or they make it prohibitively expensive to set up certain companies, like cable companies for example, so there are many monopolies in the US and many ways to monopolize a business.
Tell them that help wanted signs are springing up everywhere.
Obviously you've never run a business. A wider profit margin allows for a greater percentage to be reinvested back into the business to further increase profits.
What you're calling "profits" isn't profits.
In theory yes, but in practice, no.
We have not seen wages go up in decades, despite the profits of the rich absolutely skyrocketing by trillions of dollars collectively.
In fact, the more money these people get, the more they spend on power, more specifically, the power to demand more out of their employees as they corner job markets and dry up job opportunities for people, forcing them to work for that company instead of non-existing competitors. Wal mart is a good example of this.
do your own homework
>Obviously you've never run a business.
haha yeah OBVIOUSLY
fuckass
If people could math, conservatism wouldn't exist.
>how do i explain to liberals
you can't explain anything because they start from a position that sounds good then warp their personal reality to match their position.
for example, if you were to find a more reasonable person of the left, have a convo, and make very good points that actually contradict their worldview... they will say "yeah well i just don't see things that way" and that's literally the end for them. they don't think about WHY they don't see the world that way, which is why they are worse than children and shouldn't be humored.
Looks like a week or two ago when i checked last everyone was using the 2016 plan just to have something out after trump spoke. Apparently new tax brackets still aren't released. Keep the middleman skimming in mind though. If you study the French revolution you can see how they created welfare accounts and new taxes but barely a fraction of the money even got to where it was supposed to go.
If you want to explain to liberals why socialism or communism is retarded, tell them there is only enough money on earth to give each person alive around $9000.
Libs refuse to acknowledge the ten trillion of debt from obama.
Trickle-down actually doesn't work but that's more to do with other policies that allow these wealthy, would-be job creators to outsource to third-world hellholes and/or employ illegal immigrants. At the end of the day, these people are going to invest as little of their money as possible for maximum profit. If there's an avenue open to avoid spending what it would take to move these jobs here, they're going to take it nine times out of ten. Close these loopholes and you'll have a shot at seeing trickle down actually work.
What is true though is that if you nickle and dime the rich, they're going to outsource jobs, and move their money out of the country that is taxing all of their wealth.
>George Bush was the cause of the subprime mortgage crisis triggering the recession that had been fomenting for decades
>Bush should have been psychic and instead of concentrating on two fucking wars (whether justified or not) at once, should have pushed mortgage reform
Fucking millennial
Poor -> buys food at local supermarket. money circulates in US. wages, jobs.
rich -> invests money in laundering and shell games like art or ancient wine. maybe ... if we're reeeeeal good they will buy another yacht... but they sure as hell aren't buying an american one so where did the jobs go?