claims liberals can only win elections by giving "free shit " to minorities

> claims liberals can only win elections by giving "free shit " to minorities

> votes for the party that gives out tax cuts like it's Halloween candy

Conservashit logic 101

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
youtube.com/watch?v=FqLjyA0hL1s
youtube.com/watch?v=PBA1xGeHDtE
youtube.com/watch?v=q2gO4DKVpa8
myredditvideos.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>That image
Literally the entire economic platform of conservashits.

how not robing someone is giving someone money?

Taking resources from someone to give them to your political clientele is not the same as not taking the resources in the first place.

>"giving" someone tax cuts

No wonder all your companies are leaving.

The middle class pays more taxes than the rich now.
In fact the rich pay hardly any taxes at all. - which can be seen as a present since they do get to enjoy all the roads, firemen, etc the middle class taxes pay for.

>pretending any tax is robbery

The logic of a child, not even a bright one

>Nigger noises.

Kill yourself.

>tax cuts
>free shit
Tax cuts aren't free shit, they keep the money you worked for in your pocket ya silly gook

saging your thread desu

Taxes for the rich are much more than the middle class. What you say is only true because the rich actually know how to handle their wealth. The middle class either spends their money when they obtain, or keep it in a bank account. If anyone in the middle class knew how to handle money they would quickly rise to upper class.

>The middle class pays more taxes than the rich now.
Out if curiosity how do you define the two?
The 0.1% of people with highest income are paying slightly less than the next 95%, is that it?

>Not taking is the same as giving.
When are you going to thank me for all that shit you own?

Of course the rich would sit on money given to them instead of reinvesting in it, liberal fiscal policy is fickle as fuck, you can't take risks like that with one in power.

>Out if curiosity how do you define the two?

Middle class: people with jobs
Rich: people who live solely off investments.

And to clarify: I meant in total.

If you make $100k a year you pay about $40k in taxes.
If you make $10million a year you pay $10k in taxes tops.

That's adorable, that's how you think taxes work?

Actually almost all taxes goes to pay for debt created by the fed created fiat currency.

>taking less of someone's money
>giving free shit


liberal logic everyone

Free shit via high taxes is mandatory

Keeping more of your money means you have a choice

That's how I know taxes work.

Take Steve Jobs for example:
He claimed to make just $1 per year, so he didn't have to pay any income taxes.
meanwhile he happened to have an Irish company, with a Dutch subsidiary, that made 100% of its profits due to intellectual property which is taxed at 0% in the Netherlands.

When you are rich you only have to pay sales and council taxes.

Conservashits actually think the super rich make money through "work". They don't realize that all that cash comes from capital acquired through jewish usury. It's sad how neocons managed to use social issues and religion to brainwash hardworking poor whites to support this kike bullshit.

>tfw trump killed neoconservatism forever
>tfw working class whites finally waking up

>giving free shit is the same as tax breaks on hard earned income
Liberal logic 101

Everytime conservashits get any power they immediately try to pass tax cuts as though it is some magic formula to grow the economy, kek

In reality, there is a Laffer curve, no it does not mean continuing to lower taxes will trigger more growth. As with Bush tax cuts, eventually you just start handing over unsustainable tax cuts and borrowing to make the shortfall.

You have to reduce taxes on everyone.

I wish Biden would have ran for President

"The Rich" by socialist logic is literally everyone who earns more than $40k a year.

>votes for the party that gives out tax cuts like it's Halloween candy
>implying dems don't help big banks just as much

> on hard earned income
lol

>I should determine how much money people are allowed to exchange

fucking britcucks always 20 years behind americans on anykind of political trend. The rich are anyone who makes the majority of their money through capital rather than actual work.

Why don't you ask your countrymen in Liverpool and Manchester how neoconservative economic policy has been working out for them?

Mate if you tax the balls off anyone who earns money then people stop trying to earn money. Why do you think the amount of people out of work and/or claiming benefits increases year on year?

Socialists hate people who work, which is ironic as they often call themselves the worker's party.

>Countrymen in Liverpool and Manchester.
Nice joke.

So not taking money I earned is giving me free shit?

>Keep what you make
instead of
>Take what you make and give it to others

I'm not exactly on the side of needing gibs, fampai.

>tax cuts are the same as giving away money

why don't the bottom 90% pay their fair share?

they contribute almost nothing to society in general or govt.

tax cuts aren't free shit you grade F moran

> who earns money
>earns money
>earns

What does that even mean?

> Why do you think the amount of people out of work and/or claiming benefits increases year on year?

Becasue there is immigration, wages are each time worse, and there is less jobs.

>Socialists hate people who work
Source?

Christ, those diagonal lines hurt my eyes

Pick up a translation dictionary.

How unfortunate that they earn $500,000 a year. Poor basterds would give anything to cut their income to $10,000

Pay denbts.

The 1% pays more than half of the taxes in this country. This does not include the amount of jobs they create, people they directly employ, etc

KILL YOURSELF.

>taking less of business owner's money away from them is "giving them money"
liberals are this retarded

He's implying that "earn" isn't a bogus term for manipulating currency/tax policies in their favor

I know the definition. But how does one earn a income?

I don't have any debts.

I never got american love with memes. Do you get happy when you write this? Does it make you feel good? Or are you just bored?

Thank you for the (You)

Because they horde more than 40 percent of the nations wealth bootlicker

>But how does one earn a income?
Provide a service. Get paid for service. It's impressive how many women fail the second part.

It's a lot easier than getting into the real basics of a simple argument that shouldn't be necessary in the first place.

I'd rather say you come from a shit country, than argue about whether or not earning a living is a verifiable concept.

Portugal is Western Europe's Mexico, tho.

>only 40% of wealth
>pay over half of taxes
>create jobs
>create infrastructures
>create good places to live

kk

if you think income tax applies to the earnings of rich people
you are probably poor

if you are annoyed at people living off of benefits
you are probably poor

>work your butt off to get to a high paying position/situation that doesn't require as much grind time
>NO FUCK YOU. YOU SHOULD HAVE TO KEEP WORKING 40 MORE YEARS JUST LIKE ME

>wageslaves

>Not being self employed.

They receive money for it. But how do they "earn" it?

> getting into the real basics of a simple argument that shouldn't be necessary in the first place.
> that shouldn't be necessary in the first place.

We got ourselves a know it all. Tell me Timmy, how would you fix the world in 5 small steps?

> earning

What is this?

>Portugal is Western Europe's Mexico

Sure mate, we always value american insights in our internal affairs. They are more often then not very clever.

>create jobs

Demand creates jobs. No company will expand unless they have a market to sell. You guys are so stupid.

So are you saying taxes should only be lowered for the lower and middle class? Good thing that's Trump's tax policy ;)

>Earn:Verb.
>1: obtain (money) in return for labour or services.
>2: gain deservedly in return for one's behaviour or achievements.

Both of these definitions imply that after working you have earned the money you are rewarded with. Are you intentionally being stupid?

Sup Forums gets in the quagmire of arguing abstractions with no definitions.

Earning as the most basic is to receive money in exchange for an action.

Yet, this doesn't take into account the idea of fairly earning a living; if someone were to be a career criminal, it really wouldn't be argued that they "earned" a living.

> Reforming Tax Code
> Giving Tax Cuts

>tax accountant here

No, it doesn't.

I work for a tax accounting firm here in Portland Oregon. We have clients who are of all ranges of "class" in income.

Anyone who makes over $100,000 as an individual year is top 5% income earner in the US. If they are employeed they have a 1.9% payroll tax, 2.25% FICA tax, total of 36% income tax federal, an extra 12% state tax because Oregon, more than likely have an ITA (Stocks and Bonds) and pay a capital gains tax on that income of 7.5%-12%.

The deductions given after filing drop them one tax bracket lower which reduce federal income from 36% to 30% and State from 12% to 10%.

Have a nice day Netherlands.

That's why I said /situation

>lefyfag trying to promote the worst economic system ever created by man

Please show me one example of a centrally planned economy out performing a free market economy.

this.

taxes aren't used for anything productive

>hoarde

You do realize they don't keep the money sitting in their bank accounts, right? They reinvest, which creates jobs. When you raise taxes, they--and those jobs--leave the economy. This is basic economics, dude.

>defending rich people who don't work
how much money you have in the bank leaf cuck?

definition 1 and 2 are completely different.

>Both of these definitions imply that after working you have earned the money

2nd definition does not

So earning is the reward after work, or the fair reward after work?

giving it to the poor is clearly working

muh welfare

>out performing a free market economy.

Define free market economy

> trying to promote

Where?

>That image
>People are just abstract brackets and don't move between these brackets as their life goes on.
This image is the Intellectuals equivalent of someone telling you "a man gets hit by a car in NYC every 15mins" and responding with "well he must get awfully tired of that

Yea but now all the niggers in the ghetto have the free time available to follow their dreams of shooting each other and rapping.

>fair reward after work

And this is when you get into arguments about what constitutes fair, until we get to a point of redundancy.

There are also other definitions about what the reward is for an action.

E.g., you can earn a bullet as much as you can earn a dollar.

...

Tax cuts is not GIVING away the government's rightfully earned revenue. It is TAKING LESS of someone's earnings.. We need to exterminate you vermin. Governmetn. Providing "services" so valuable and desirable that NO ONE would pay for them voluntarily.

> They reinvest, which creates jobs.

Explain this.

>When you raise taxes

Who said anything about raising taxes?

>they--and those jobs--leave the economy

They already are.

>basic economics
>implying economics as anything basic in it
Americans...

>handle their wealth

You mean holding it in tax havens?

Not much because I owe my dad for fronting the money for a truck. But I have no debt to an institution.

What exactly do my finances have to do with this? I understand there are ways to make money work for you, not the other way around.

>Person who never took an accounting class, or any math beyond kindergarten detected

>stealing less money
>free shit
nice meme, jamal

Tax cuts aren't "free shit" you dumb nigger we have no duty to pay the government to do things just because it wants us to.

Poor third world nigger pretending he understands economics...LOFL

The state protects rich people and uses this thing called debt to give them free money for its services in lieu of taxes.

>protects rich people

From what exactly? Isn't it the government's job to protect its citizens?

Our standard of livings increased vastly with welfare state. The best countries to live in are the ones with large welfare states.
>And this is when you get into arguments about what constitutes fair, until we get to a point of redundancy.
Exactly. There is no fair reward. You get what you can get. You don't earn a wage, you fight for it.

I would have to say that Tito Yugo would beat some african free market shithole

Are you fucking retarded?

>I would have to say that Tito Yugo would beat some african free market shithole

Is that all you've got? A failed state that lived off the tit of the USSR vs niggers?

Unless you're retarded or just plain edgy why would anyone be a leftist? Serious question.

>Explain this

When money sits in your bank, it's not being used to make more money. Despite interest, you lose out because of inflation. Rich people take their money and start businesses or buy stocks (a.k.a., give companies capital to earn a share of their profits). This creates jobs.

And yes, economics is a contentious field that's still an imperfect science. However, there are still basic tenants that are simple to understand; kind of like how mathematics is nuanced and advanced, but counting is easy.

>Exactly. There is no fair reward. You get what you can get. You don't earn a wage, you fight for it.

The abstraction is necessary for a society; if there is no distinction made in what is earned, then the violation of the property laws of others is fair and good.

>having money in the bank is a good thing
Wealthy people don't keep a lot of cash. It's either invested in appreciating assets, or depreciating ones that bring in much more money over their usable life than what they cost (including interest on loans to buy them).

I don't understand the tiniest bit of economics. That is why i don't pretend to know anything about it. Economics is on the same grounds as sociology. It's not a science. Even senior economists sasy that they don't know absolutely nothing of what happens. Like they say, economists is the trade of convincing other people that you know what you are talking about.

But what i find it funny is some high school dropout coming here after "reading" one book by Thomas Sowell and teaching others about economics with one sentence absolute truths. Clear example of :

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

>Isn't it the government's job to protect its citizens?

But we both know it catter to the interests of old boys networks, big fortunes and old boys networks

> A failed state

I would hardly say that. Tito Yugo was actually a very sucessfull nation.

>lived off the tit of the USSR
No, Tito Yugo was only nominally allied of USSR. They were one of the founders of the non-aligned movement (third world).

>vs niggers?

I thought free market was cure for everything? And you asked me for ONE instance.

But since spectrum is allocated by government bodies in virtually every country that matters, the market really isn't free.

>Rich people take their money and start businesses or buy stocks

You mean in panama? Or in investment firms so they can proceed on gambling the money on the economy? Or buying up politicians?

In what world do you live in?

Do you honestly believe in anything you write?

> This creates jobs.

Then why today, that the rich are richer then ever, they are more free then ever are we living in a unemployement crysis?

>And yes, economics is a contentious field that's still an imperfect science
>still

Confirmed for a retard

> there are still basic tenants that are simple to understand

> kind of like how mathematics is nuanced and advanced, but counting is easy.

Omg, absolutely cringed

It's actually the first time that a memelord actually knows what he is talking about. My question remains, why do you meme like a braindead retard?

(Or where you looking for a argument?)

>Tito Yugo was actually a very sucessfull nation

Depends how you define successful, compared to other socialist countries it did quite well, compared to western countries it got rekt.

>Tito Yugo was only nominally allied of USSR

Yes which is why Yugo did so well after the USSR collapsed am i rite?

>I thought free market was cure for everything?

I'm just saying there are 100's of examples of why socialism fails to provide for the people compared to capitalist countries. You've given me one example which only happens to be true because you used niggers as an example. Niggers will not thrive under any system, except slavery.

> not confiscating their money
> "giving" money to the rich

because the economy does better ...when there is less of a burden on the economy?

what's the problem?

You realize that the dunning-Kruger effect is only for "unskilled" being well read on economics from sources like Thomas Sowell would by all means negate the dunning-Kruger effect because Thomas Sowell is considered a reputable source of economic information. Dunning-Kruger effect is for those who find an ideal perfect without reading anything behind it and defending it to the point of no return.

An example is a person who calls them self a Socialist but knows nothing about or read any credible source on the matter.

Another example is taking tax advice from Wesley Snipes (he went to jail for tax evasion)

Another example is "Trickle Down Economic theory." To which is a farce because the theory in question does not exist outside of political punditry. No economist or reputable college or economic school of thought advocates the theory.

Someone whose read Thomas Sowell's books of economics from Basic Economics to Applied Economics and his Essays/Papers of Economics does not fall under this effect. You could argue if they have only skimmed it. You'd have to prove they've only skimmed though.

>Depends how you define successful, compared to other socialist countries it did quite well, compared to western countries it got rekt.

Sucessfull by broad terms. Yug was avery sucessful country even with western standards. It got rekt because a central balkan power was not in the interests of it's neighboors

>Yes which is why Yugo did so well after the USSR collapsed am i rite?

It started to collapse after Tito died.

> why socialism fails

Define socialism

>You've given me one example which only happens to be true

Venezuela failed too. So did all the South America. The Yugo sucessor states are failed states (except slovenia). There are many other capitalist failed states.

>muh tax is theft!!!!111!!!

Not really, it's pretty much going to hit argument bedrock and devolve into a principles.

It's much more easy to funpost when you get these arguments.

>because the economy does better ...when there is less of a burden on the economy?

source?

>being well read on economics from sources like Thomas Sowell would by all means negate the dunning-Kruger effect

wat nigga? The Dunning-Kruger effect says that the less one knows about a subject the more certainties one has about it. Ergo those retards explaining the 2008 economic crysis in 1 and a half lines, or those explaining economic interactions in 2 lines.

>Trickle Down Economic theory

Suply side economics.

>Someone whose read Thomas Sowell's books of economics from Basic Economics to Applied Economics and his Essays/Papers of Economics does not fall under this effect.

He could easil fall in it if he does not have the education to understand it, or if only studies Sowell, or if he his dumb as bricks.

But i dont even care about ir. Whenever i see anyone explaining complex economic interactions in one line i intantly remember this effect

Hows the trolling of the portuguese bolchevik in disguise?
How many questions did he asked already?

Conservative right is fucking dead! There are only socialists and liberals. You wont see anyone fighting for protectionism (both in the US and europe) or anti EU measures anymore.
Trump has been a fucking liberal all his life. He only says what he says because of the votes (like he actually would deliver...).
The few who actually oppose these measures (with enough voters to mean something) in the western world, like Le Pen, are full blown fascists (I honestly dont know Austria's far right).

>source

youtube.com/watch?v=FqLjyA0hL1s

Faz pouco barulho manel

Eu juro que sempre que ouço um tuga aqui a escrever o que tu escreves, que me lembro disto

youtube.com/watch?v=PBA1xGeHDtE

youtube.com/watch?v=q2gO4DKVpa8