Sociopath Community

It seems like trickle-down economics is a strawman. That's why Hillary uses it..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSLJYLDlWQg

Basically, do you trust business owners to have their funds increase add up to them help their own workers, or does it make more sense to help said workers from outside of their jobs? 

Who deserves tax breaks, and are unions evil? 

I think that's not really the argument, now that I've read more about it. It has nothing to do with trusting companies.

It's more: Companies generate services and wealth. By giving tax cuts, we promote the growth of the country. The strawman comes in when someone says it's a zero sum game, in which case we're indeed giving more money to the rich.

Apparently the trickle down economy was not invented by an economist, but by a politician. Nobody can trace back the theory to an economist. It's a political buzz word used to refer to a strawman argument never made by an economist.

The idea is much more macro-level. For example, given two countries, say, venezuela and the USA. One promotes growth, another does not. By giving tax cuts to the rich, we're promoting growth. In the long term, the whole country prospers. That's the idea I think.

Now which one works better, giving tax cuts to the rich, or to the middle class... I've seen no evidence either way. And that's very surprising. By now, this whole debate should have been settled. It can't be that difficult to answer the question objectively. But all I see is politicians and highly interested parties waffle their way through to support their political views.

Mentioned this quite a bit, but taxing the rich more doesn't affect them, it affects their customer base.

^ It's important to note that Democrats always campaign on raising taxes and actually do it. Hillary campaigned on doing it ( for the middle class too ), Obama did it, Biden did it, Harris would've done it. Trump on the other hand lowered taxes for everyone. 

Lowering taxes for everyone is the way to go, including the rich. It'll leave room for job expansion, plus the people will have more wealth due to an increased ability to save more. The economy is strong when people aren't broke. 

Take Canada for example. We voted in the Liberal Party of Canada, and much of the policies that devastated Canada are pages from the DNC's playbook. 

 Check this out....

Frasier Institute said:

With its recent focus on “fairness,” the Trudeau government has reignited the debate around whether high-income earners pay their “fair share” of taxes. A new study, which sheds light on this ill-defined concept of “fair share,” finds that the top 20 per cent of income-earning families in Canada pay disproportionately more in taxes than all other income groups.

It's been said that 1 in 10 Canadians right now are lining up at food banks more often. Many of us will either eat, or pay rent. 

Trudeau will also increase carbon taxes to 61% in the new year. 

In an effort to bring in more money, Canada's Liberal party's idea is to increase taxes while Canadians are struggling and losing their homes. Their solution is to raise taxes in the hopes the economy can be fixed. 

Lowering taxes means in the grand scheme of things people will go out more, and people will spend more, and because of that the government will make more, but instead the masses are pinching pennies, cutting corners, and avoiding things they need and by that I mean they will skip breakfast and lunch and eat the cheapest dinner they can find. 

In the grand scheme, people will use a less generous serving of shampoo, and make their homes more chilly in the winter.

Check this out.

Not being sexist or anything, just stating facts, and what might have happened if Harris won. Kamala blew away 1.5 billion dollars and ended up -$20,000,000 in debt. Kamala had the shortest campaign in all of history which was only 107 days, and she managed to blow away that kind of money on useless shit. Imagine how much more fucked the US would become if she took power.

Trudeau's head remains in the clouds, where virtue signaling is more important than prosperity. 

Irrespective of what I think about trickle-down economy... What a tool Trudeau is. He's assuming that not electing a woman to become a president is somehow anti-feminist. What the fuck. You're electing a person who is supposed to be suitable for the most important position in the country, not a vagina for people to look at and feel proud for being inclusive.

I'm wondering what the arguments in favor of taxing the rich more are. There's a simple rationale for how rewarding competition and the man at the top would trickle down to more motivation for everyone to work hard to take opportunities, and it seems like there's at least some evidence that countries who adopt a model where competition is encouraged tends to do better economically in the longer term. I wonder what the arguments for raising the middle class is.

Personally, I see the whole process as a markov chain monte carlo process, where complex structures emerge from a simple goal (get to the top). I see government intervention as a sub-optimal process, because it requires constant regulation. It's sort of like the difference between micro-management and giving people autonomy.

However, beyond the economical gains, I think there are other matters that should receive some consideration. For example, at what point should we provide a safety net for people? Are we ok with letting people living in faeces? Probably not. So some regulation is surely necessary? The cultural change towards equality is another thing. Most capitalistic countries produce social inequality on top of wealth inequality, with rich people sort of looking down on those not making as much as they do. I wonder if there are ways to produce highly efficient societies with social equality. I guess the two sort of run counter to one another.

Jada said: 

Irrespective of what I think about trickle-down economy... What a tool Trudeau is. He's assuming that not electing a woman to become a president is somehow anti-feminist. What the fuck. You're electing a person who is supposed to be suitable for the most important position in the country, not a vagina for people to look at and feel proud for being inclusive.

Ha ha ha. That's what everyone is saying about him. He'll be gone October 2025 the latest. There were votes to to have an earlier election not too long ago, but the NDP party ( New Democratic Party ) voted to keep him in, which also is their demise. 

While Trudeau is in power, we don't have Trump's respect, and rightfully so. After our elections things will get better for Canada. There are other things about Trudeau that makes him even worse, but then I'd have to write an entire essay offtopic.  

I'm wondering what the arguments in favor of taxing the rich more are. There's a simple rationale for how rewarding competition and the man at the top would trickle down to more motivation for everyone to work hard to take opportunities, and it seems like there's at least some evidence that countries who adopt a model where competition is encouraged tends to do better economically in the longer term. I wonder what the arguments for raising the middle class is.

I think the argument is taxing the rich doesn't mean increasing the taxes on the majority, then everything gets better. In turn people start believing the rich should be taxed more, but little do they know what really happens when the rich's expenses increase. 

Inflation within itself is due to an increase in expenses. The Carbon Tax for example. Increasing taxes on farm production and food delivery/gasoline, forces the farmers to increase prices on whatever they produce, then the supermarket is forced to increase prices, same with restaurants, and it's not just food, but everything. In turn the percentage of sales taxes remains the same, except the people rich or poor, will pay more and the government is supposed to make more, which isn't the case since not everyone is rich, and we're at that point where the middle class is starting to vanish to either being part of the rich or poor. 

Personally, I see the whole process as a markov chain monte carlo process, where complex structures emerge from a simple goal (get to the top). I see government intervention as a sub-optimal process, because it requires constant regulation. It's sort of like the difference between micro-management and giving people autonomy.

However, beyond the economical gains, I think there are other matters that should receive some consideration. For example, at what point should we provide a safety net for people? Are we ok with letting people living in faeces? Probably not. So some regulation is surely necessary? The cultural change towards equality is another thing. Most capitalistic countries produce social inequality on top of wealth inequality, with rich people sort of looking down on those not making as much as they do. I wonder if there are ways to produce highly efficient societies with social equality. I guess the two sort of run counter to one another.

 It's important that the government doesn't expand, or else they'll end up controlling everything with more laws and regulations. It's not really popular, but it's been widely broadcasted by the fake media how it's more about snowflake policies. I'm a fan of Elon's D.O.G.E ( Department of Government Efficiency ) which will basically shrink the government, which is a very good thing for many reasons. 

A strong economic economy is a safety net, and there are programs that are supposed to serve a safety nets. Some socialised systems like welfare are in place.

As for social equality. It's already a thing. Some of us would argue how western women are the most privileged human beings on Earth, simply because they are more often given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to certain cases. 

Others would argue women lack rights, and they narrow it down to issues men aren't even capable of having.

What they don't tell you is how the pro choice movement is mostly countered by pro life women ( who men should date ) and abortion is STILL, an option.

Modern equality movements are always lead by miserable people. 

- Black people with victim mentality. "Oh no, another black person was shot by a white cop, in America and it doesn't matter when the black person did, we must rise and push back"

- White people who were duped to be ashamed of being white. "We must get down on one knee to give the coloured people a leg up" ( Without their knowing, that is White Supremacy at it finest might I add )

- Radical feminist. "Equality ? We do not feel safe walking at night, but the guys can !" ( I'm not sorry that the most dangerous criminals are men, while the greatest protectors are men too )

- Antifa. Usually scrawny liberal minded youth who find glory being masked and rolling in packs to assault their political rivals with hatred. Equality is one of the things they would claim to be standing for, while there are no laws that are different for any group of people, except transexuals. They for some reason have laws that enforce them from being criticized. 

- Useful idiots. Queers for Palestine. Or support of terrorist groups who would otherwise execute them, or silence them if they were in the very radical islamic states they protest for. They too would suggest they're all for equality, but at the same time would celebrate genocide of those they hate. 

For them all, the laws are the same as it is for everyone. What they want is for higher earnings to be taken away from people who work and strive toward them. Why should Tom or Jen be able to break their asses and get a Lambo ? "Give it up and make sure everyone gets paid the same. No overtime." Will oppress and stump our growth as a civilization. 

Nature made us the way we are. The best hunters were able to have bigger families and better security in the wild, because they were able to bring home more kills, while those who did less got less. In the modern world sometimes the harder we work, the less we make, while most people simply don't know how or ever attempt to learn how to be an entrepreneur. The opportunity to do so is open to everyone, and sometimes even dumb people succeed at this. 

Jada said: 

I think that's not really the argument, now that I've read more about it. It has nothing to do with trusting companies.

So if a company decides to take in those tax cut benefits to buy more fancy cars instead of helping their own labor force, that has nothing to do with company practices? 

You can see where the communist took over.

Turncoat said: 

Jada said: 

I think that's not really the argument, now that I've read more about it. It has nothing to do with trusting companies.

So if a company decides to take in those tax cut benefits to buy more fancy cars instead of helping their own labor force, that has nothing to do with company practices? 

I never said anything about company practices. What I meant is that the trickle down economy proposed by the left as a strawman for what the right believes was never proposed by any right wing economist. It's a strawman.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-trickle-down-economics-and-free-market-enterprise

The point is that people are not saying that if you give tax cuts to people the companies will give the money to their labor force. I was explaining in my earlier post why you are misunderstanding the argument for the free market economy as a solution to poverty.