Why Liberals hate rich people - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Rudolf Prikryl
#13753805
you are somebody who is blinded by statistics. But you actually lack an intimate understanding of why some things are the way they are. You furnish numbers without knowing what they mean.


Ah yes, the "you are blinded by actual data" argument. Surely a winning position.
Why don't you tell me, on a case by case, graph by graph basis, what they each individually mean, since you accuse me of "not knowing"?

Take the US society for instance. It's invaded by millions of low class people from south of the border. There is a federal law that states that people must be treated without regard to their ability to pay. That means that our medical system is burdened by deadbeats. We do not see this dilemma in other countries that you showed on your graphs.


No, certainly Germany, France, Spain, the UK, and many, many other states don't face massive influx of immigrants from Turkey, North Africa, Pakistan, and numerous other places.

Wait a tic, they do.
Wrong again.

So the military doesn't count.


So you say. I didn't realize being the OP meant that you got to determine what "counts" in reality and what doesn't, even though you failed to provide any evidence that the military is not a government institution, and actually admitted that it "technically" was, moving. the. goalposts. of. the. discussion. yet. again.

How about historical examples? Was the TVA a failure? How about the interstate highway system? Before you post another "gotcha," sure, there are issues with public infrastructure today.. but how about that funding???

Local police institutions, the fire department.. certainly huge failures by your metric.
Why don't you go to the police station and tell them what lazy union fatcat failures they are? I'm sure they'd agree with you.

What about the Department of Homeland Security? Do you think they're another failed government program? How about the CIA, FBI, or NSA?

Eisenhower was certainly a socialist wasn't he, with his high tax rates and huge government spending programs, what a failure!

If the role of our government can be limited to tax collection, and most importantly, the enforcement of private ownership, then sure free market system would work. Instead, we have a controlled market, in which Obama's iron fist directly regulates everything.

The bottom line is, for free market ideas to excel, the forces of demand and supply must not be hindered.


So you believe that you personally should have the right to kill another human being if you determine him to be infringing on your private property? Without government oversight?

How about the ability to rape children? Sounds like your "perfect system" has no problem with that.

Would I be able to purposefully sell people lethal products (i.e. faulty pharmaceuticals), since the government has no regulatory capability over goods?

How about hiring my own private army? It's my own private ownership of mercenaries, why is there any problem with me having personal control over tanks and assault helicopters?

How about slavery? Could I own my own slaves? They'd be my own private property!
Last edited by Rudolf Prikryl on 11 Jul 2011 08:04, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
By Rei Murasame
#13753807
rik wrote:Patting yourself in the back there, aren't you.

More like wondering what your angle is here. Image

I think that your economic stance contradicts the point that you are going to later make about immigrants, I'll show you when I reach that part of your response.

rik wrote:Your graphs don't mean squat.

Interesting how you ignored my explanation of why free market ideas aren't working.

They absolutely do mean a lot, because it's impossible to debate the issue without the outcomes being visible. Your explanation of why the system isn't doing anything good there is basically that you think tort reform and the ability of people to purchase from health companies outside their own state would cause improvements, but wouldn't that just be countered by further consolidations from the insurance companies and repetition of the same problem?

rik wrote:If the role of our government can be limited to tax collection, and most importantly, the enforcement of private ownership, then sure free market system would work.

But why would the companies pass up the chance to just buy themselves into the government on their own terms and repeat everything that you are seeing happening right now? I'm aware that the system is not a completely idealised free market in the United States, I'm simply saying that the hybrid (which leans almost as close to free market as you will realistically get) is a product of companies using the free enterprise system in a democratic capitalist country, to slightly tilt the tables in their own direction so that they can survive even if something were to challenge them.

rik wrote:If you can't see how tort reform would reduce health care cost, then we're just wasting time debating.

Would it solve the fundamental problems in the system?

rik wrote:As for many of the graphs you posted regarding US position in the world, you are somebody who is blinded by statistics. But you actually lack an intimate understanding of why some things are the way they are. You furnish numbers without knowing what they mean.

Take the US society for instance. It's invaded by millions of low class people from south of the border. There is a federal law that states that people must be treated without regard to their ability to pay. That means that our medical system is burdened by deadbeats. We do not see this dilemma in other countries that you showed on your graphs.

I'm completely aware of this, just the failure of your system in its social totality (ie, your immigration policy, economics, etc) to prevent those people from entering, it part of why it is bad.

Free market economics even produces an environment where they are now woo-ing the immigrants:

[youtube]c0ASJ6dOk30[/youtube] [youtube]pQnhuj11zgI[/youtube]

Now, if you had closed down the border and stopped allowing businessmen and their lackey politicians to hold it open, this wouldn't have happened, would it?

Plus, it's not like there are no immigrants in the European countries listed on those graphs... :hmm:

rik wrote:It's tough debating people like you. This is because you do not understand that which you speak about.

I definitely understand it, since I make a lot of topics around here about the abysmal immigration problem in the USA. Just I think that is is your capitalistic ways and the desires of businessmen to drive wages down, intersecting with the social democrats and their crazy love of diversity, which form a bipartisan vortex of mass immigration into your country.

You need to make it stop, but you can't make it stop by doing free market economics, you need to try exercising some control, both at the border and inside the economy.

So I'd say fully nationalise your healthcare and close the border.
User avatar
By Genghis Khan
#13753860
Rei Murasame wrote:More like wondering what your angle is here.


As I said, he's not ready for truths that counter his standpoint. He's unable to digest them right now. He's still young and impressionable, and the Fox news/talk radio/whatever machine has brainwashed him so badly, facts aren't an issue.

Hell, he even told you as much, remember?

rik wrote:Your graphs don't mean squat.


That's his subconscious trying to tell you that counter intuitive truisms do not register at present. With all the charts you're posting, your foot in fully on the gas pedal, but the way he's wired to repeat talking points, it's on neutral.
By rik
#13754045
The military was one,

You're repeating yourself like a broken record. I do not accept the military as an answer.

the EPA was another, OSHA was another,

Thanks to the EPA, our businesses are relocating out of the country. Isn't it the EPA that declared CO2 as a pollutant? How can gas required by plants be a pollutant? Plants take in CO2, release oxygen for we humans to breathe.

Wasn't it the EPA also that declared the Delta smelt more important than people? Driving farmers out of business in an economy like this one?



The EPA is one of the worst government agencies out there. The anti-business stance of this agency is uncanny.

FEMA, the NHS systems in Canada and the UK are both functional and less expensive than health care in America...


FEMA works? Tell that to victims of Katrina. I know Ray Nagin, and Kathleen Blanco dropped the ball, but FEMA itself made a series of mistakes, such as paying out money to a lot of people by mistake, and then later asking for the money back.

Would a non-government body do a better job? That is the question. I believe it would.

About socialist health care, I think you've been watching too many Michael Moor movies, of which Sicko comes to mind.

The NHS is fine if you've got a cold. But when it comes to serious medical conditions, most times you have to wait a long time for treatment. Do you know patients are denied access to life-saving cancer drugs by the NHS. The NHS said the drugs were not "cost-effective". That is your government program that works?

What about MRSA infections due to poor hygiene in NHS hospitals? This accounts for a lot of deaths in UK hospitals.
Along the same lines, rats in Walter Reid hospitals.

I know you Liberal goons are gaga for Socialist health care systems. In doing so, you totally ignore facts provided you. Moore's propaganda claims that socialized medicine delivers real quality of care relative to what we have in America today. He's very wrong.

The NHS is not not less expensive than what we have in the US. I've talked about why cost is so high in the US health system, but do you care, no you just ignore those points.

- Incessant lawsuits. Hence high insurance premiums for doctors/hospitals ultimately gets passed on to the consumer. Fix this with Tort reform, and cost would come down dramatically. The Democrats won't touch tort reform, because lawyers fund their campaigns.

- Lift the ban on inter-state purchase of health insurance. This increases competition, and hence brings down price.

- The UK/Canada do not administer expensive treatments (Xolair, Avastin, etc). The US does. So naturally, Socialist care is less expensive. Socialist=low quality.

- Wait times are longer for treatment in the UK, Canada, Australia, etc. Many patients die waiting.

- What about the huge number of people the NHS employs? 1 in 23 people work for the the NHS. What a waste.

If socialist health systems work, can somebody explain to me why Obama keeps issuing exemptions to certain businesses? Can you explain why Congress people reject their own health program? Instead they prefer care offered by private practice?

you can see this, for example, from the educational system in Finland.


Population of Finland 5.3 million
Population of California 37 million.

How can you even think of using Finland as an example of a socialist system that works? That is a tiny itty bitty country.

Even the population of the city of Los Angeles is almost twice the size of the country of Finland.

Finland is a monolithic society, with a tiny population. They're not burdened by poor bilingual students. Everything is fully contained. So, of course, socialist education works for them. We're talking here about real populations like big 'ole US of A.
Last edited by rik on 11 Jul 2011 16:11, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Rudolf Prikryl
#13754064
Good job essentially ignoring me for what, 2 posts in a row now?

rik wrote:The UK/Canada do not administer expensive treatments (Xolair, Avastin, etc)


Oh noooo! You mean, I can't get a failed cancer drug or a needlessly expensive, probably dangerous asthma treatment? DAMN YOU SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!!

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110711/OPINION03/107110301/-1/gallery_array/Avastin-news-troubling-don-t-blame-FDA
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-16/health/asthma.drug.xolair_1_xolair-severe-asthma-fda?_s=PM:HEALTH

rik wrote:what more do you need? Government programs can be functional. I'm not sure what more there is to say.


emphasis mine, had to catch that before the edit.
Finally right for once!
Last edited by Rudolf Prikryl on 11 Jul 2011 16:33, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Genghis Khan
#13754077
rik wrote:Isn't it the EPA that declared CO2 as a pollutant?


No. The supreme court did, in 2007, when there was a conservative majority on the bench.
By rik
#13754121
Good job essentially ignoring me for what, 2 posts in a row now?

Sorry you're not getting enough attention. I'll try to squeeze you in next time. Unfortunately, I'm the only one against a throng of irrational Liberals. And as you can see, I don't give one line answers. So I do not have enough time for every tom dick and harry.

Oh noooo! You mean, I can't get a failed cancer drug or a needlessly expensive, probably dangerous asthma treatment? DAMN YOU SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!!

In other words, Socialized systems ban expensive treatments that could help prolong people's lives. Go home and die, we can't afford to treat you. The US on the other hand treats these people, cost notwithstanding.

what more do you need? Government programs can be functional. I'm not sure what more there is to say.
emphasis mine, had to catch that before the edit.
Finally right for once!


If you've been reading other posts, besides obsessing over mine alone, you'd have known that this was a quote from someone else, that I inadvertently left in while I was composing my response.

But of course, you're not here for an honest debate. You're here to obfuscate. Bad news for you, I'm here to set you lot straight.
By rik
#13754123
No. The supreme court did, in 2007, when there was a conservative majority on the bench.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/scien ... anger.html
By rik
#13754135
He's still young and impressionable, and the Fox news/talk radio/whatever machine has brainwashed him so badly, facts aren't an issue.


Why do Liberals always run to the gutter when they're cornered?

You sound totally ridiculous. Fox, talk radio, that's what Liberals always attack. First, I don't have cable. So Fox is out of the question. Second, I have a day job, unlike most of you Liberal welfare spongers.

I'm an avid reader. I do my research primarily online, and interact with people in forums like this one.

Who would take somebody seriously who makes a statement like: "He's still young and impressionable" about somebody they know nothing about.

You can't refute my postings. Yet you accuse me of things? But then again, that is what Liberals do. It's not about the message. It's about the messenger.

I look at the high post count for most of you Liberals. They're mostly fluff posts like yours. One-liner empty vacuum.
User avatar
By Rudolf Prikryl
#13754141
Sorry you're not getting enough attention. I'll try to squeeze you in next time.


Poor baby, getting all teamed up on so he chooses to pick and choose the arguments easily broken and ignore the tough questions.
Sorry you can't actually address my points. Be my guest, keep using delaying tactics, they only make you and your ideas look that much weaker.

Who would take somebody seriously who makes a statement like: "He's still young and impressionable" about somebody they know nothing about.


Oh, so that doesn't go for people who say, "oh he's just a Liberal welfare sponge?" or "Liberals are still young and impressionable but as they grow up and earn money they obviously become Conservative?"

Strange how that works...

You can't refute my postings.


I did, and you still haven't tried to tackle my refutations, and instead choose to continue vacillating wildly.

"The sky is red!" says rik.
"No, rik, it's blue! Look at the sky!" shouts the forum.
"You are incorrect, it might be technically blue, but it is still red! You cannot refute me!" says rik.

This is the level of discussion we are at right now. Provide some evidence that the sky is red, by all means.

In other words, Socialized systems ban dangerous treatments that could help end people's lives. Go home and live, we can't afford to treat you after you develop heart attacks and seizures from taking shit medicine. The US on the other hand gives these people the faulty pharmaceuticals, and puts them into permanent debt for it.


Fixed it for you, had you even bothered to read the articles I posted (that thing called "evidence" that you consistently fail to provide).

you're not here for an honest debate.


I was, and still am. I presented my position, you ignored it, I asked you again to address my positions concretely, and, lo and behold, you continue to ignore them.

Bad news for you, I'm here to set you lot straight.


Go ahead and do it, you're wasting everyone's time going on about "You are wrong. I am right. I will defeat you! You will see how mighty the force of my arguments are, pathetic liberals. I'll fit in your puny arguments next time I post, because it is important for me to type up about how puny they are with the time I have right now. Ha Ha, you and your welfares, and your illegals..." without making a point.
User avatar
By Genghis Khan
#13754191
rik wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/scien ... anger.html


Yes, because:

http://mhlnews.com/global/outlog_story_8625/

The conservative-majority-scotus told them to.

rik wrote:Who would take somebody seriously who makes a statement like: "He's still young and impressionable" about somebody they know nothing about.


Coming from someone who literally seconds before that, wrote this:
I have a day job, unlike most of you Liberal welfare spongers.


So, who's assuming things now?

rik wrote:I'm an avid reader. I do my research primarily online


When you get bad intel (such as the "tax cuts for the rich creates jobs" bullshit), it doesn't matter whether you read it or watched it on TV. It's still bad.
User avatar
By Drlee
#13754385
The debate is not about you. You're too small.

You say a lot of stuff, while not really saying anything.


Its sad really. You actually believe you are making cogent arguments when the rest of us find them about as deep as a rain puddle. So you run for the cover of insult.

I am sorry you are unable to understand these arguments. Perhaps it is youth. Perhaps it is education. Or perhaps it is just dogged clining to the nonsense you have been told by some talking heads. Whatever the reason it is not necessary to waste much more time with you. You just don't appear to be up to the challenge.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#13754506
There is a difference between earned rich and inherited rich. Trust fund babies should be taxed like we were in North Korea.
User avatar
By Drlee
#13754690
The founders liked the idea. The first inheritance tax in the US dates to 1797. (Second Samp Act).

I like inheritance taxes. 50% seems pretty good to me. We can exempt small business and farmers and just tax investments if some of you are squeamish.
User avatar
By Rei Murasame
#13754692
Hold on a moment everyone:
rik wrote:Finland is a monolithic society, with a tiny population. They're not burdened by poor bilingual students. Everything is fully contained. So, of course, socialist education works for them. We're talking here about real populations like big 'ole US of A.

The USA is an exceptionally large population compared to most states in the world.

So you are essentially telling me that you think socialistic policies work so long as we keep population low, have relatively medium population-density, maintain ethnic homogeneity, and build up local manufacturing, information, and service industries.

And that it could be done in almost every country except yours. I guess it's a good day to be in a normal-sized country with decent population-density then, and not in the USA.

You've just told me that I can go right ahead and mix nationalism with guild-socialism/corporatism, and that you even think it would work.

I wonder what kind of ideology would arise out of that mixture?

Oh wait, that actually exists. It is written in my signature. :D

Here's the Finnish version of it: [Link]
By rik
#13755027
So you are essentially telling me that you think socialistic policies work so long as we keep population low


Essentially, yes. The larger a population is, the bigger the number of people that have to be paid not to work.

First, I don't agree that Finland is Socialist. It's very Liberal.

Let's look at an example. Take two families who are neighbors. They've chosen to share everything. If one family turns out to be a sponge, and not pull its weight, the other family may be able to tolerate it, since it won't cost the first family an arm and a leg. In this case, the probability of one family out of two turning into a sponge is low. So socialism might just work.

Now expand that to 100 families. Now you have a higher probability of one family becoming a parasite.

Let's develop that idea further into a population of 5 million (Finland). Now you have a whole segment of society who won't want to work. But it may still be manageable, since 5 million can be centrally managed.

Let's take a larger sample of 300+ million (USA). Now we're talking about a whole lot of cheaters. The higher the number of cheaters, the lower the incentive and morale among those working. Hence, you would see a downward trend in work ethic. You somehow have to "make" people work, for them to do it. Making somebody work is dictatorship, or at best tyranny. If I don't like work, I should have that choice.

One more thing. Socialist systems have a low expectation in life. They do not have to strive for much. From cradle to grave, all is taken care of. You cannot live beyond a certain standard in life. Your government pre-plans your life.

Under a pure Capitalist system, you can aspire for greatness. And the best do attain greatness. Sadly, enemies within do not like greatness. Hence constantly attack it.

Anohter reason Finland is a bad example to use as a place where Socialism works, is that the country's population is ethnically homogeneous. Birds of the same feather flock together.

It's easier to control 5 million of the same people, than it is to control 5 million of a balkanized country.

As I said before, Finland isn't Socialist. They are Socialist-ish. Cuba is Socialist. People who can, are fleeing Cuba to the United States. Why?

Unbridled capitalism ultimately leads to people becoming slaves to corporations.

Unbridled socialism ultimately leads to people becoming slaves to the state.

But I would prefer Capitalism over Socialism any day. I lived in Russia under Communism, and I didn't like it. Too autocratic.

I'm for assisting people who are truly downtrodden under a Capitalist system. But I don't agree with feeding lazy people, as is the case under Socialist system.
By rik
#13755035
Poor baby, getting all teamed up on so he chooses to pick and choose the arguments easily broken and ignore the tough questions.


Maybe I don't respond to you, because of your contemptuous tone all the time.

FYI, owing to time, I don't read every post. One surefire way to make me skip your post, is to constantly portray yourself as holier than thou. And your posts are dripping sarcasm and condescension. I know you'll probably respond saying I call people Liberal. I don't say it with disdain. That is what you are, isn't it? So what's the problem?

More reason not to answer your post, I know people with an agenda. They never agree on anything. All facts you supply them are ignored. If you fall in that category, I won't waste my time with you. When I dialog, I give credit where it's due. Do you ever?

When I dialog, I discuss points on it merits. Do you ever?

As for answering tough questions, I do answer tough questions. Which of my posts suggest otherwise?

When you get bad intel (such as the "tax cuts for the rich creates jobs" bullshit), it doesn't matter whether you read it or watched it on TV. It's still bad.


Bad intel according to whom? There is precedence that supports that position. So why are you so adamant that it's incorrect?

The reasoning behind it has been fully explained and illustrated. Still, you disagree. So, at the end of the day, you have no leg to stand on. You simply disagree to disagree.

Perhaps if you quite being so antagonistic, and actually rationally look at points presented to you, maybe then you would begin to see things outside your myopic views.

I will repeat my position:

Cutting taxes for job creators encourages them to create more jobs by re-investing their profits. You disagree.
If you raise taxes on job creators, it discourages investment. You disagree.

When you refuse to see the wisdom in a principle as basic as the one above, then we have nothing further to talk about further.
User avatar
By Genghis Khan
#13755042
rik wrote:First, I don't agree that Finland is Socialist. It's very Liberal.


Here's what's weird: You've said several times that liberals are lazy and want state slavery so they won't have to work.

Now you're saying that Socialism leads you to be a slave for the state. Same charge.

But the quote I just showed suggests you've suddenly decided to make a distinction between liberalism and socialism. Finland is only one, but not the other, right?

You're moving the goalposts on your definitions, so you won't have to admit you're wrong. Again.

rik wrote:Let's look at an example. Take two families who are neighbors. They've chosen to share everything. If one family turns out to be a sponge, and not pull its weight, the other family may be able to tolerate it, since it won't cost the first family an arm and a leg. In this case, the probability of one family out of two turning into a sponge is low. So socialism might just work.


Huh?

That's gotta be the most non-helpful example I've ever seen. Nothing about it suggests why 2-5 families is OK but a million isn't.

rik wrote:Unbridled capitalism ultimately leads to people becoming slaves to corporations.


A rare moment of sincerity among many ramblings.

So if both capitalism and socialism lead to slavery, why is slavery to corporations better?
User avatar
By Rudolf Prikryl
#13755048
rik wrote:Maybe I don't respond to you, because of your contemptuous tone all the time.
(...)
One surefire way to make me skip your post, is to constantly portray yourself as holier than thou. And your posts are dripping sarcasm and condescension.


rik wrote:You ignore the message, and attack the messenger.


rik wrote:you are somebody who is blinded by statistics. But you actually lack an intimate understanding of why some things are the way they are. You furnish numbers without knowing what they mean.


Well, isn't that awfully hypocritical. You ignore my message, attack the messenger (me), act holier than thou, and back your continued assertions up with nada, zilch, zero facts.
Then you tell me that I (and others) don't understand my own data and tell us that we are "acting holier than thou."

How does it feel to be completely delusional?

Try practicing what you preach maybe?

I will no longer hold you in contempt as soon as I have felt you have earned that right.
Until you stop projecting your own failures as a debater onto others and making personal attacks instead of debating with coherent arguments, I will continue to be sarcastic to and contemptuous of you.

quit being so antagonistic, (...) maybe then you would begin to see things outside your myopic views.


See, like that. I have to say, that is quite a funny joke, because in the same sentence that you tell them to stop being antagonistic, you antagonize them.

rik wrote:I know you'll probably respond saying I call people Liberal. I don't say it with disdain.


rik wrote:Liberals are devious beings. Constantly concealing their true nature. They have to lie to the people, because if they shared their true intentions, even the least intelligent among their followers would run.


I'm sorry, but saying you don't say "liberals" with disdain is disingenuous as hell.

That is what you are, isn't it? So what's the problem?


No, I'm actually not. The problem is you ignore facts and attack the messenger because you have no defensible position. If you don't want to argue the facts, I suggest you stop participating in discussion.

I'm still waiting for you to enlighten us on those graphs that apparently we all don't understand.

More reason not to answer your post, I know people with an agenda. They never agree on anything. All facts you supply them are ignored.


Haha, Christ, as if you don't have an agenda. Guess everyone should ignore you too.
Good thing there's really not much to ignore since you've failed yet again to make any coherent argument other than "all you liberals suck, because." followed by 5 to 6 baseless assertions gathered from talking points without. any. evidence.

When I dialog, I give credit where it's due. Do you ever?


Yes, if there was any credit to give to you here.
Unfortunately, you have yet to make an argument, but make plenty of personal attacks and assumptions about who you are arguing with, and then blame your opponent for doing that, projecting your own deficiencies onto people who have actually provided evidence.

When I dialog, I discuss points on it merits. Do you ever?


Yes, so far you have provided no points (at least, with any sort of respectable evidence), so therefore I can award you no merit.

As for answering tough questions, I do answer tough questions. Which of my posts suggest otherwise?


All of them. :roll:
Answer all of my questions in all of my posts in good faith, with evidence to back up assertions, I will give you credit, and we can then move forward.

Until then, you haven't earned anything from me or anyone else, credit, merit of argument, an-y-thing.

It's painfully ironic how completely entitled you yourself act while blaming others of acting entitled...
which is something I've observed among people who are rich (or play rich people online), when in fact they typically have not themselves earned a damn thing.

Not to assume this is the case with you (financially, that is. It is definitely the case in terms of the merit of your "arguments"), but to stay on topic, it's yet another reason "Liberals" (among many, many others) hate the rich.
Last edited by Rudolf Prikryl on 12 Jul 2011 20:53, edited 10 times in total.
User avatar
By Drlee
#13755051
Cutting taxes for job creators encourages them to create more jobs by re-investing their profits.


It does not necessarily do that. A very good case could be made that it does the opposite. Suppose I own a business that makes a million dollars. I am at a decision point. I can take the million in profit and spend it or I can hire more people and try to earn more money.

If my taxes are 20% then I can take an $800,000 profit and live it up. It only costs me 20% to decide to spend the money on a Mercedes and French wine. (Both by the way money that leaves the US and employs no Americans.

If I face a 70% tax rate then I would have a higher incentive to reinvest the money in my business which would make the money not profit dollars and not taxible. Do the math.

Under a 70% tax rate on the wealthy (over shall we say $250K per year) If I take my million out I will get to keep $300K the rest going to the government. My business does not grow either.

If I take out $250K I am taxed at a much lower level. Get to keep more of my money and my business grows by some $750K which pays for a lot of capital improvement and perhaps more employees. They spend money which is taxed. The guy who sold me the new equipment spends the money. I buy a nice American made Ford. The only loosers are Chateau Margeaux and Mercedes.

This was what was done during the great depression by the way. The "idol wealthy" were hording money so the federal government raised taxes to force them to invest. And they did. Before the crash the income tax rates were 25% on the highest earners and 12.5% on capital gains. In 1938 with the economy dramatically improving the rates were 78% on the highest earners with 30% on Capital Gains. The economy came roaring back to life as we had a great stimulous package when we spent money arming our European allies.

If you raise taxes on job creators, it discourages investment. You disagree.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 12

Confessions extracted under torture...seems legit.[…]

^ Wouldn't happen though, since the Israelis are n[…]

I was actually unaware :lol: Before he was […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Every accusation is a confession Why sexual v[…]