Why won't they just give money to everyone?

Why won't they just give money to everyone?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/rbFOyTr0ajQ
www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/pick-choisir?lang=eng&p2=33&id=2060033
youtube.com/watch?v=-yFhR1fKWG0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Why not just print infinite money and give infinite money to everyone? Then everyone can buy everything

>Socialism 101

Bernie's platform

Socialists should be hanged or shot.

Because you cant corrupt leaving money in people's pockets.

But handing money out can be played with.

Trickle down economics has never worked. It's just an excuse for the wealthy to get richer.
Give every working household in the country a million dollars and freeze prices. People will buy shit and that will fix the economy.

Thats not the reason why taxing more the rich is a failed policy. Its simply because if you decide to tax them they will simply leave the country

>implying we don’t already do this for the benefit of jews, israel, ZOG, defense industry, banks.
>implying that Bernie doesn’t just want to do it for the regular people

D-don't tax cuts just mean that the money the super rich are already making isn't taken away from them in the form of taxes? That's literally not a handout, they're just keeping their own from being taken by the government? Or am I retarded?

but it's not really theirs if they exploited the proletariat to get that wealth

Worked in the 80's.

>mfw leftists think being poor in the west is such hardship and want to "help" them with communist policies

Because the idea is to spur investment in order to create jobs that pay out over a longer period of time.

This meme makes no sense.
Wtf, it's just a perfectly valid argument.
Taxation is theft.

I can see you don’t know the difference between ‘earning’ and ‘taking’.

have you ever been hired for a job by a poor person?

You ignorant nigger
youtu.be/rbFOyTr0ajQ

>Why won't they just give money to everyone?
The whole teaching a man to fish versus giving him a fish. Once makes him self-sufficient; with the other, you have Africa.

Let me school you here bub...

Let's say that everyone has to pay 100$ of tax money a month.

The rich aren't burdened by this, but the poor are, because they can't afford it.

So then the government is like "Okay, let's tax 20% of everyone's overall income".
Everything is good, except the economy takes a turn for the worst.
The working class people require at least 90% of their earnings to make a living, so it would make sense for there to be a tax cut for the poor.
But, then the rich complain, because their businesses require tax cuts to stay afloat (to provide the working class their jobs), so the rich are given a tax cut.
The tax cuts don't work, and the government realizes that it's an economic issue, and that it should resolve itself through better trade policies.
The government tries one thing, it doesn't work; then it tries another thing, and it ends up in an economic crash; then it tries another thing, and it doesn't work; everything we've tried thus-far have been socialist-leaning policies.

So, then there's the small-business guys who just want economic advantage, but their services are too expensive, as they have to pay off their licensing and permits they got which the rich take advantage of, and the fact that they don't have land to build farms, so they have to rely on a competitive price..

Then one guy simply says "Why not give money to the working class?".. So handouts are issued, and it makes people dependent, and that results in laziness, and the economy drops even worse. And the socialists say "We have to tax this, tax that, global warming, climate change, immigration, etc". Not only do people not want to work, but people cant create jobs, because there are too many regulations; and the rich that can afford to create jobs are the only people able to pass all regulation, therefore they are the only ones left in competition, meaning that they can set their own prices, and that would result in a wage-war.

one is a self sustaining system the other continuously needs money printed to continue, i wonder which one works

kill yourself shill rat

I seem to remember something about the TARP bailouts and stimulus. They broke down the total and divided it by Americans, and it was some ridiculous amount per citizen they couldve just handed a check to in order to
'restart' the economy.

Theres a theory that says if you did that, all the money would end up back in the same hands rather quickly, presumably because of how most people manage money.

I admit I have difficulty towing the party line on economics.

For example, this garbage that the rich are job creators and thats why we should kiss their ass. I have friends who still try to convince me that when the rich get mo' money, they suddenly create jobs irrespective of product demand and dont just send it to Wall street where money goes to die in interest yielding more interest. First off, its not their obligation to create jobs. I dont just create jobs because I have money. There has to be an underlying working dynamic.

By their logic, if you paid people half as much, there would be twice as many jobs. Its bullshit. The fact is that minimum wage is not a living wage, like it or not, and there is rarely room for advancement. If you cant pay a living wage, then you can call it whatever, but its not a living wage which is why people work. Saying you would have to cut jobs is just another way of saying you cant afford the labor you have taken on and it just promotes misery.

Then theres this tax business. "If you lower the rate for the rich, the government revenue increases because people have more to pay. If you raise it, then the cost is passed on to the consumer."

What happened to free market in that equation? If taxes are raised on the rich and most raise the consumer cost, then theoretically anyone who takes a temporary cut to their bottom line and keeps prices low should do more business than their competitors, right? Then they not only make more money over time, but beat the competition in market share...

What money?

How about not giving the rich your money?

No, for some reason Republican pundits seem to think it only works in one direction.

It pisses me off because its asking me to cry for the wealthy. Im not actually opposed to any of it. I want lower taxes for every damn body, period, rich included, just because its good policy and goddammit, the government can do with less! I just hate bullshit, sophist arguments they come up with to sell to the public. Its like regulation. Yes, sadly we do need some regulation because theres always some assholes that neglect safety or dont give a shit about their neighbors drinking water or real estate values, and they are lawyered up the wazoo so the common people cant defend themselves.

And frankly, I've never been impressed with Republican economics any more than liberal ones, because both get to Washington and just become flagrant thieves and thugs. Republicans just do it differently and end up spending just as much, especially on military boondoggles. We have the biggest defense budget on the planet in all history and yet cant defend the one border that isnt an ocean or Canada. What the hell is that?!

And Republicans.. every fucking dime they seem to save somehow always ends up being a quarter they give to Israel.

If it weren't for Trump, I wouldn't have voted at all. I am in Pennsylvania, where last term we had a Republican governor, state senate and state assembly. And what did we get? Tax cuts for shale drillers, a bloated budget, and a fat gasoline tax increase. Thats Republicans. The state capitol damn near went into bancruptcy.

Im all for Republican principles. As for their actual record of deeds, thats another matter completely.

>gives 1,000,000 $ to everyone poverty family
>price of milk goes up to 10,000$

How about lopping off social security and the payroll taxes? That would get money into the hands of working people today. Everyone's salaries would increase, as would the gap between those who do and don't plan for the future.

IIRC it was over $2000 a year.

The TARP bailouts were bipartisan though. Did you see Eric Holder putting anybody in prison for what happened? Did you see Obama deciding that banks that are too big to fall need to be broken up? They can bankrupt the economy, have their high-risk investing approaches subsidised by the taxpayer, and the companies don't get broken up, and nobody goes to prison.

That's the society we live in nowadays, we decided to invent the corporate person who would be liable instead of actual persons. If a crime was commited, the corporate person would be held accountable. Nowadays, even the corporate person isn't held accountable. When people and corporate persons commit crimes in the united states, there's no punishment at all, it's just business as usual. The economic effects of what happened killed countless amounts of people, millions, and nobody is guilty.

I don't see what happened with TARP as being an example of the republican ideology against handouts though, it's literally just welfare for corporations. On paper, both the Republicans and Democrats are against that. In reality, they both suck banker cock. Never forget that nothing actually changed. Too Big to Fall is still the norm. If 2008 happens again, the taxpayers will cut the bankers another fat Cheque.

>The minimum wage is not a living wage
It really is, people just think it's inconceivable to live 10 to a room living off cabbage soup nowadays, but you CAN live off it. The "living wage" the left talks about is a moving target anyways, if everybody got paid it, what would be considered a living wage would rise, it's a meme concept. Here in Canada the living wage is fixed to things like that you need to have as much furniture as the bottom 25-50% of the population to be achieving a living wage, but the entire population can by definition cannot achieve that without total wage equality.

Supply side economics/"Job creators" are a meme though.

One is theft, one isn't. Creating a situation where voluntary transactions are incentivized is not at all the same as demanding money from one person to give to another.

Commies GTFO

>"Job creators get more money make more jobs"
>"I need to get a JOB>!?!?!"

liberals think you should be happy the gov lets you keep any of your earnings

>just freeze prices
>economy
wew

why not just go full communist while you are at it

What we really should be doing is bombing all tax haven't worldwide. It's okay for rich people to have money, but not hoard it.

Put it back into the system or meet my friend MOAB.

>In reality, they both suck banker cock

That says it all in a nutshell. Its just awful. I feel like I am living in an occupied country.

I have hope with Trump, but am still not optimistic. It still feels like we've reached the end of a dream somehow.

Frankly, I am terrified for the future of the next generation. Fucking terrified. I look around and the country I grew up in a long time ago is gone. Fucking gone. Im starting to see the rotting bones of what was here. I look at the flag and see the corporate logo of a cartel brand, a cabal of thieves on the Potomac. This was the new world, and that might not mean anything to some, but goddammit it meant a lot to me. It was literally a new half of the planet and we keep screwing it up. It feels like South America in slow motion. Even Canada, which I once referred to as the "re-boot disc for North America" is being torn to pieces. A pristine land of so much potential. Even our Midwest still has a lot of potential. But all of our cities and therefore seaports are occupied with an army of thugs and barbarians, ready to muster for any media bugle call.

To me, a country is not its government. Its the land and people on it. This brand name is failing. There is no bail out in the end. The system will implode and there will be new borders. People have been chipping away at it for a while. Who was it that said you can have democracy or money in politics, but you cant have both?

And the new borders thing scares me. Look at how many wars Europe had, and they had legitimately different cultures. We have no unifying culture anymore.

Maybe it was inevitable. It just wouldve been nice to be able to die feeling like there will always be an America like I remember. The land will be here, and the people. As for the flags and borders, I just have no idea.

Sorry for rambling. I must go. Thank you for the thoughtful input. Have a good weekend, all.

I'll also mention, here in Canada PM Harper ('06-'15) was seen as anti-poor but if you actually look at the results under his leadership, inequality didn't rise significantly. Canada survived 2008 despite fairly extreme US interdependence fairly unscathed. By the time he left office the federal debt to GDP was roughly the same. All things considered the economy worked out fairly well for people. What FUCKED people was the early 90s recession in Canada. What caused the recession? Constant deficit spending in the course of two decades had TRIPLED Canadas debt-to-gdp ratio in two decades. Then when a recession actually hit the world lost confidence in Canada's ability to pay debts and there was a massive selloff of public assets and austerity measures which substantially bolstered inequality in Canada as the rich ate up those public assets in the fire sale.

What causes inequality in my mind isn't so much tax and spend policies, and it isn't low tax low benefit policies. Overall, tax and spend will lead to less inequality, the Nordic countries have the most economically equal countries on earth using tax and spend, but it causes lower overall wealth as well.

It's debt, the promise to pay off the bankers with public money that fucks people, this is what got Venezuela not socialism. It's shit like "too big to fall" that causes inequality. it's the public being obligated to pay off the bankers that causes inequality. Every year, the financial sector owns a larger and larger share of total GDP. US banks went from 2.8% of GDP in 1950 to 8.4% in 2011. It's shit like the TPP, an agreement where governments around the world promised to protect IP rights, rights to ideas, for longer and longer periods of time, the governments promising to beat the fuck out of any poor people who didn't give infamously rent-seeking tax dodging corporations the money they were entitled to for ideas. It's governments promising special interests the publics money.

did read but I most go.

again, thank you for the thoughtful insights. Have a good weekend.

cont.

In the context of US politics, people have to realise somebody like Sanders, Bahnie Sandals wasn't the enemy, he wanted medicare for all, he wanted to tax the public and spend those taxes on medicare.

It is cocksuckers like Obama and Clinton who are the enemy. Obama came up with the most fucked up healthcare system I can imagine, literally, non-Americans do not understand how this shit works. Their jaw drops when I tell them that it works by Obama promising insurers, bankers, a cut of every American's income. At least with medicare for all you don't have fucking bankers as the middlemen, but instead public employees. At least with single payer you have the public being able to have extreme negotiating power that allows you to strike a better deal with medical suppliers, the US has a fucking LOT of people.

This cocksucker didn't stop there though. He promised pharma another payday, all around the world now pharmacutical companies, who paid their taxes in fucking Ireland when he was in office using schemes like the double Irish, would be entitled worldwide to more and more money from the poor for every idea they had because of the TPP. In exchange, he was willing to give up other American jobs through free trade. This motherfucker who broke up NO banks, who threw nobody in prison for causing the 2008 collapse, who continued the status quo of too big to fall. All he did was promise more and more of Americans money to special interests - and yes in exchange people with pre-existing conditions and the poor got healthcare coverage - but nonetheless those insurance companies, those bankers, the people not even making the medical products people use, they're getting a little more of the economy.

This is probably the only reason why Trump was prehaps the smaller danger to Clinton despite being fucking retarded. He's still on banker dick, but not as extremely.

...

Why don't they just stop taking money from everyone instead?

Post 2011 to 2017 please

Your govt printed fiat money is going in the shitter quicker than a deuce the morning after taco Tuesday.
Bitcoin, next stop 6 thousand

...

It stayed roughly stable

www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/pick-choisir?lang=eng&p2=33&id=2060033

Harper, for what it's worth, introduced a bail-in regime that screwed over the banks, and introduced the tax free savings plans the RDSP and TFSA that benefited the banks, but tended to benefit middle-lower to middle-upper classes the most aside from the banks because contributions are capped making the benefit to the 1% negligable. The TFSA also reduced the need for interest rate hikes that benefit the banks even more than making saving with the banks more attractive, since the banks just get free money from low interest rates essentially that comes from everybody that is holding CAD.

He at the same time also forced banks to adopt a "Bail-in" regime making them pay for more of the costs of the risks they were taking. This hurts banks profitability, but reduces risk that would be paid by the taxpayer.

The Provinces are also completely fucking retarded in Canada and the central bank is flooding the bankers with money. Generally Harper was way too demonized up here.

this

i cant believe i am going to live my life and fucking die and there will still be leftists

fuck i hate them so god damn much

literal fucking communism retard

>towing the party line
ITS TOEING YOU ILLITERATE BRAINLET
YOURE NOT PHYSICALLY PULLING A LINE, YOURE STEPPING UP TO IT
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Sam Hyde has the perfect plan.
Trash economy. Make cubes of trash currency. Everybody is a millionaire.

11:23
youtube.com/watch?v=-yFhR1fKWG0