The reason Luigi is so popular with Americans is because he is a microcosm example of the Sociopathic Oligarch’s worst nightmare - The average American rising up to literally KILL the wealthy. He is just one man with one victim, but what if he were multiplied by hundreds, or thousands, or millions?
The way black people felt about OJ, is now being felt by all working class Americans toward Luigi. So the wealthy, and the system, want to punish him harshly as an example to the rest of us, while we are plotting ways for him to escape punishment.
When the people are demanding a reasonable solution, and they are dismissed by the goverment in favor of punishing Americans in order to benefit the Sociopathic Oligarchs at our expense - AGAIN! - the Free Market will find an alternative, and nothing frightens them more than the threat of Luigi’s Solution catching fire, and becoming a trend.
Nah I say we make some cuts to the capitalists
For, you know, government efficiency and all.
Thing about a class war is it only works as long as you can subdivide the lower classes and make them hate each other.
Even the GOP base has figured out that the boot on their neck belongs to the rich, probably thanks to Elon’s haphazard culling of govt employees, specifically veterans, while preserving funds that benefit the rich.
Say what you will about conservative voters, but when something is obviously harming them specifically they will go after it, and Trump’s administration has finally blundered enough to wake at least some of them up.
It’s the same story with the status-quo-protectors vs innovation-seekers no?
First party just wants to stay put so everyone who thinks like them are already in the same camp. (zero vector)
Others side agrees that vector of “politicial compass” must be non-zero but they don’t agree on the direction so the net effect is 0, status quo.
class war […] only works as long as you can subdivide the lower classes and make them hate each other.
That’s not how class war works, that’s how they try to prevent class war, ie war between classes.
I think they mean that’s the tactic used by the wealthy in their part of the class war.
Finally they know who their true enemy is
Tax them or eat them.
If they refuse to tax them, I say we EAT them.
What about their legs? They don’t need their legs
I say we cage them in cuba and let them eat each other.
You know how some Chinese provinces eat frogs? I want my millionaire done like that, but I want to be the one who salts them.
I am not opposed to inreasing taxes necessarily, but people need to understand that the income of wealthy individuals is not used purely for the fulfilment of their needs and wishes. Rich people play a rather important role in allocating and managing resourses(capital) in society, and increasing the taxes will decrease the capability of rich people to invest, which is not ideal.
Also, if the tax increase is percieved to be unfair, rich people can just leave and go to Monaco or Switzerland or any other “rich friendly” country. They are pretty much free to do so and they do it all the time. So increasing taxes will not necessarily lead to more tax revenue if they are increased above what is reasonable.
I am so happy karma is not a thing here btw. I would be in an unenviable position otherwise.
So if the rich don’t like paying their fair share if the taxes, they’ll just move? And go where? Any country they’d like is going to have even higher taxes than are being suggested in America. In addition, Americans living abroad still pay annual income taxes to America, as well as the country they live in.
They’d likely have to learn a new langugage, a new culture, new food, etc. They’d be far from the things they love about America, all so they can save money on taxes that wouldn’t improve their already opulent lives one tiny bit. Do you really think a multi-billionaire, who already is so wealthy that neither he nor his descendents could ever spend it all, is going to leave the incredible comfort of America just to save a few million in taxes that they’ll never even notice?
You should visit Monaco or Dubai, see for yourself.
I’m guessing you expected the downvotes to be fair, but I’d try and actually engage with what you said, since you clearly took the time to think it through and express it well.
What you’re suggesting (that the wealthy classes play an important role in wealth distribution, that’s hampered by tax) is pejoratively referred to as “trickle down economics”[0] and slightly less critically referred to as “supply side economics”[1].
You might want to reduce taxes on the wealthy for some other reason, but the idea that it helps the economy is very poorly evidenced, and there’s quote a lot of evidence to the contrary.
It also seems to miss the fact that a lot of poor countries (take Nigeria[2]) have very low taxation, and many very wealthy countries (take Sweden[3]) have very high taxation.
My two cents are that, sure the rich might spend some money on things that benefit everyone, but it’s probably a lot less than the amount of infrastructure development taxation can fund.
There’s obviously complexities, but the idea that “people will just move” doesn’t seem to happen in reality. I’d also say that, excluding perhaps billionaires, being moderately wealthy in a equitable society with good healthcare, transport, roads, etc, is a lot more desirable than being more wealthy in a society with less of those things. But I guess that’s just my take, I don’t have any evidence for it.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
[2] https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/nigeria/individual/taxes-on-personal-income
I do not believe taxes need to be set as low as possible for the rich, I simply said the negative effects of increased taxation of the rich can offset the benefits at some point. The government should not wage war on the market economy, it should optimise it. But for the socialists it seems the economy is the enemy, and they think very little about the consequences.
But there is a more important point: efficiency. You say we do not need the rich to finance things, however, planned economics are less efficient than market economics because central management of such a complicated structure is very difficult. The rich are a lot more opportunistic and conform far better to the expectations(that are expressed in the market by price) of what investments are needed/more efficient than the goverment possibly can.
Well, in my personal experience and according to the people I know, people do move, and if they are sufficiently rich, it is hardly a problem. But I suppose it is not as cut and dry as that, and often it is more difficult for people to move.
Three points. Firstly, in the 1950s, CEOs earned around 20 times what the lowest-paid employee did (including things like bonuses, shares, etc). Now the average is around 400, but can be as high as 2,000.
Secondly, in the US in the 1950s the highest tax band was 91%. Today it’s 37%.
Both these things are perfectly sustainable. And all that’s working under the false premise that there aren’t numerous tax loopholes available to the rich but not the poor.
Thirdly, there’s a tonne of research into what best stimulates economies, but it’s often dismissed because it doesn’t favour the rich. If you give money to the poor, they will spend it in their local communities. Then that money gets spent again, and again, and again, getting taxed each time. IIRC, for every dollar given to someone poor the government itself gets something like a dollar fifty back. Because the money just keeps circulating.
Give money to the rich, though, and what happens? They hoard it, or they spend it abroad. It drains money from the country, either by taking it out of circulation, or by taking it out of the country entirely.
I do not believe income inequality is inherently undesirable.
Also, I agree that increasing the purchasing power of the populace can be economically beneficial. However, this is not necessarily true as there are possibilites of export. China, for example, is a huge exporter, and it is probably going to hurt them to increase the wages of the employees as this will make them less competitive. This policy is working quite well for them, it seems.
This policy is working quite well for them, it seems.
For whom is it working out well for?
Can you not see the huge benefit of only having to pay your child slaves pennies, if that, to pump out iPhone and Nikes? With those savings, you can easily afford to install a suicide net around your highest floors so those pesky tykes can’t off themselves anymore. You’re making money coming and going.
Edit: /s Just in case it’s not clear to some.
It doesn’t seem like you’re really replying to what i wrote.
You say we do not need the rich to finance things, however, planned economics are less efficient than market economics because central management of such a complicated structure is very difficult.
I’d question this one a lot- I agree central planning is bad for a lot of things, but it’s great for infrastructure like roads, water supply, transport etc. I think this bears out in the evidence as well- the USA has suprisingly poor water supply, education and rail transport, despite by some measures being the wealthiest country in the world. Compare this to infrastructure standards on Europe or China.
We could probably argue all day and longer on this, but please at least consider wealthy high taxation cuntries in Europe as a counter example. At the very least, I think they show a successful alternative to low taxation economies.
I agree that government financing is good for some things, but since most of the economy is run by the market making markets less effective is an interesting decision.
Also, European countries with high taxation do not exist independently, they rely on international capital and financial sector.
I am not totally opposed to taxing the wealthy, but this should be limited by reason.
Ok, one last question, but can you expand on why you think taxation makes markets less effective? I’m not sure I understand why this should be a given?
I live in the UK, and VAT is applied to some but not all goods. It doesn’t seem to me clear at all that, say, cakes (not taxed) exist in a more competitive environment than say, biscuits (taxed)?
They reduce profit, by extension, investment, make domestic firms less competitive to financial institutions, making the economy less productive.
taxes increase the more you earn, so its a sliding scale… you can still earn a boatload of money, invest multiple millions, and still not be multi-billionaire rich :)
It may be a simplistic take, but if a person is hoarding wealth doesn’t that take the money out of the economy?
Taking money out of the economy is not bad. This allows the government to print more money without consequences.
I am not opposed to inreasing taxes necessarily, but people need to understand that the income of wealthy individuals is not used purely for the fulfilment of their needs and wishes. Rich people play a rather important role in allocating and managing resourses(capital) in society, and increasing the taxes will decrease the capability of rich people to invest, which is not ideal.
It’s also not ideal for them to run rampant with unbridled greed.
fuck off with that neoliberal bullshit.
I am not opposed to inreasing taxes necessarily, but people need to understand that the income of wealthy individuals is not used purely for the fulfilment of their needs and wishes. Rich people play a rather important role in allocating and managing resourses(capital) in society, and increasing the taxes will decrease the capability of rich people to invest, which is not ideal.
Governments already do “investing”. Elon Musk is the wealthiest man in the world thanks to the US government subsidizing Tesla, SpaceX and Starlink. Your tax money is already going into allocating and managing capital in society, so how about instead of letting wealthy individuals choose how capital gets invested we let the government decide that? It’s neoliberal brainrot that wealthy capitalists, without any real oversight, should be the ones to dictate how capital is used.
Also, if the tax increase is percieved to be unfair, rich people can just leave and go to Monaco or Switzerland or any other “rich friendly” country. They are pretty much free to do so and they do it all the time. So increasing taxes will not necessarily lead to more tax revenue if they are increased above what is reasonable.
And let them go. The wealthy can go wherever they want but most their wealth is tied to their businesses and moving those businesses elsewhere is extremely expensive. The can take their wealth with them only if they spend an insane amount to transfer all their businesses out of the country or if they cash out their businesses. Both come with a significant drop in wealth, so they’re not going to do that. You’ve been fed bullshit propaganda.
Governments invest in some things, but they can’t effectively manage the entire economy. It is too complex, and markets provide information that will simply not be available under central planning.
Hell, even now government investments are highly inefficient for many reasons. The government is getting ripped of by private contractors, as they can’t control the complexities of production, have nearly unlimited resources, so they do not optimise, and a lot of asinine decisions are made because nobody cares enough. Look at how bloated the military funding is in the US for example.
the income of wealthy individuals is not used purely for the fulfilment of their needs and wishes
You need to understand wealth as power, and the wishes of the wealthy being to exercise that power over others.
Their role in “allocating resources in society” is controlling the resources of society. But what is “rule” if not “control of the resources of society”? What is democracy if the rich have all of the power over society.
It’s a damn lie, is what it is.
Taxation is a demand by the demos to control the resources of society. That is, it is a demand for democracy.
Which means the rich can allocate themselves into a fucking hole, stuff their heads up their own asses, and suffocate.
I understand it. Capital is absolitely economic power. I discussed this in a different comment, feel free to read it.
It seems we just have different values. There is no point in arguing.
Was this written by a rich person?
Well, I actually used to be more leftist before, but at some point my values changed, it seems. I do not see how my social position is relevant to the discussion.
Unless you are here arguing against your own interests (and I’m choosing my word there carefully) I’d say it’s pretty relevant.
I think you would say I was arguing against my interest when I held socialist(like radical socialist) beliefs. My values changed since then. We are not defined by the circumstances we find ourselves in.
Also, I reject that class war rhetoric that is championed by Marxists.
In any case, I am arguing in good faith. If my social position is enough to make you disregard me completely, then you are not.
Also, I reject that class war rhetoric that is championed by Marxists.
I’m not a marxist, nor a socialist. But if I have to believe in unbridled greed to support capitalism then I should start looking around.
In any case, I am arguing in good faith. If my social position is enough to make you disregard me completely, then you are not.
If you are wealthy and arguing not to raise taxes on the wealthy, it’s hard to disregard your self interest no matter what you claim. Edit: And it’s disingenuous of you to conceal it for that very reason.
I was not concealing it. I strongly implied I was.
Unless you are in the top .01% percent you are doing yourself a disservice.
Because we’re talking about a class war. Separated by social position.
Why do a small amount of individuals need to be the gatekeepers on so much wealth?
And what is the alternative? What would you prefer?
Capital is economic power. Should it be concentrated or not? Well, I will first say that I do not see a reasonable way to drastically reduce this inequality of power apart from socialism(as in planned economy, not welfare) which I reject for many reasons.
I would say it should be concentrated because: Most people do not have the desire or capacity to wield economic power. This has nothing to do with their intelligence or worth as an individual, but with their character mostly. It involves making many difficult decisions and significant responsibility, as you are at risk of losing your investments. You also need to show initiative which many people lack. If capital was evenly distributed most people would not have the foresight to invest but likely would just spend it to buy the things they need/want for the already mentioned lack of desire and initiative for entrepreneurship.
Also, there would be no or very little incentives to do well since you would have about the same amount of money as everyone else anyway, and this would destroy our economy, since it relies on capitalists altering the allocation of resources based on personal incentives and information granted by the market(expressed by price). If these incentive structures are weakened, this can make the economy unresponsive, which will make the resource allocation uneffective, probably even less effective than when the economy is managed by the state(socialism).
I believe you are constructing strawmen and false dichotomies. Wealth is not just economic power, it’s power, period. If concentration is good, why not embrace it to the full extent? Is the current distribution of wealth appropriate (in, based on the OP, the US), or was it better 50 yrs ago?
I did not say equal distribution or no incentives. I did not argue against the entrepreneur. The current situation is extreme inequality. We are nowhere near risk of losing the incentive. This reduces quality of life for almost all due to hoarding of resources. This also stifles the entrepreneur. So much of the fruits of labor is directed towards so few.
Investment is not limited to individuals with massive wealth. There is no reason investment cannot occur by combining resources of many instead of few. By and large, large amounts of money seeks to generate more money. I believe it’s far better to have broad ownership. I also believe that broad ownership results in less destructive means of generating returns. The wealthiest individuals don’t act responsibly (i.e., returns supercede consideration of current and future health and well-being of humanity). People will still act that way, but I’m convinced that broad ownership will improve that aspect.
Economic power is power, yes.
I do not believe that wealth equality or equality at all is desirable.
I understand that many working class people find themselves in a precarious position nowadays. I am sympathetic, but I believe that this is better addressed by reforms to the capitalist system than socialism.
In my previous comment I already addressed why I think most people would be more comfortable and better suited having less economic power. This does not necessarily mean their quality of life is worse.
Regarding your other point: “I also believe that broad ownership results in less destructive means of generating returns. The wealthiest individuals don’t act responsibly (i.e., returns supercede consideration of current and future health and well-being of humanity).” I completely disagree. The reason the “current and future health of humanity” is not accounted for is that under a market system these things are not factored into the price. So the market as a regulating tool is ignoring these issues. It would be no different if a commonly owned investment fund was investing, for instance, as it would still do things that make the most sense under a market system. This is known as a problem of externalities, and it is an argument for government intervention in the market system that I fully accept, but not for redistribution of wealth as that will likely not change anything for as long as markets are involved.
If capital was evenly distributed most people would not have the foresight to invest but likely would just spend it to buy the things they need/want for the already mentioned lack of desire and initiative for entrepreneurship.
That doesn’t explain the extreme wealth disparity that can be seen from the top 0.1% and the literal rest of society. Salaries stagnate while top level profit skyrockets. The distribution is being unfair to those that also have responsibility for the success.
Also, there would be no or very little incentives to do well since you would have about the same amount of money as everyone else anyway, and this would destroy our economy, since it relies on capitalists altering the allocation of resources based on personal incentives and information granted by the market(expressed by price).
One of the ironies of that statement is that monopolies exist today and are some of the biggest wealth funnels on the world. Monopolies have no reason to “do well”, they just do the bare minimum after they’ve secured their place and use their vast resources to buy or fuck the competition.
I do not care about wealth disparity. Salaries should probably rise, and reform may be needed for that to happen, but I do not care if the society is unequal.
Monopolies are doing very well in terms of market success. This is what I meant.
I do not care about wealth disparity. Salaries should probably rise, and reform may be needed for that to happen, but I do not care if the society is unequal.
Ah, the fuck you I got mine animal in the wild. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
I knew it was just a matter of time until final confirmation appeared. I acknowledge and respect your honesty, even if you’ve just lost any other possibility of respect.
Not at all. I do care about the wellbeing of the working class, but I do not believe that equality is a value in itself. This is the point I made.
I’ll argue! Most of this is simply wrong… but first I’m going to reject the premise of your argument.
You’re providing a false choice by suggesting that money can only be concentrated or diffused and that it can only be concentrated or diffused at the level of the single individual. You’ve placed two extremes on the table (a command economy driven by oligarchs vs a command economy driven by autocrats) and asked us to pick.
I pick neither. A command economy is not necessary to achieve reasonable societal goals, and it’s not necessary to flip the switch all the way into a 1950s Red Scare version of communism to be able to see where the economic model of unfettered capitalism breaks down.
The next problem is that you conflate the question of “how should the government collect taxes” with the question of “how should an economy operate”. Those are different questions with different answers, but the underlying principle is the same.
The government should prevent circumstances in which being an asshole is financially rewarded. The citizens should try to avoid being assholes. A civil society should correct the behavior of people that are being assholes using social pressures.
In the economic arena, that basically boils down to “not fucking over the little guy”. The government should seek to prevent circumstances where the little guy gets fucked over. The citizens should try not to fuck each other over. A civil society should shun those who violate that norm.
In the taxes arena, that basically boils down to “pay your fair share.” We all know what that looks like and feels like because we’ve had to divvy up the check after a long night of drinking. Folks with cash throw in some extra to cover their friends that might be struggling, a couple of people that are doing well might just “make the check right at the end of the night.” It works out. People know how to do this instinctively. People, by and large, know what their fair share is. Some just don’t want to pay.
In a situation where people consistently make the moral choice to not be an asshole, a lot of economic models can work. The breakdown isn’t in the economic model, it’s in the role of the civil society - society is not enforcing the “don’t be an asshole” rule. Instead, we’ve decided to idolize the assholes.
There’s not an economic model that works when everyone is trying to fuck over everyone else.
You’re focused on the wrong problem.
while i would argue with you on a few points, i just wanna say i appreciate the reasonable tone of your comment
His entire answer boils down to “people with money have proven they can handle it” which is absolute horseshit, and frankly all the pretty words sound like code for “suck it peons, you don’t deserve it because you didn’t figure out how to game this rigged system in your first few years of life.”
0 people should have more money than they can count while other people are choosing between rent and food and medicine.
I would prefer if you did argue, but I appreciate your comment.
It might be necessary to concentrate wealth and thus economic power into a smaller amount of entities but why should so few have control over these entities? If the actual employees receive more benefits from a company doing well and a board of directors is not responding to the needs of a few shareholders but to the actual market need and the need of the company employees you would still have a concentration of wealth in the form of a company but with more participants. The employees would then have the incentive to provide quality labour because that in turn makes the company do well of which they profit directly.
Dude that line of reasoning went out with Reagan, and the last time it worked was in the 1920s. You might want that to be how the rich behave, but mostly they just lock capital away and watch the numbers grow.
We don’t need an economy based on pandering to rich assholes in the hopes they give us money. We need an economy where everyone pays their fucking taxes. It’s that easy. If the very wealthy stopped hiding their money and coming up with impenetrable tax evasion schemes and just paid their taxes like everyone else, we wouldn’t have to raise them on anyone.
Even if they do mostly “lock capital away”, as you said, this changes very little in my opinion. The market incentives are still present, and it is the expectation of the return on investment that keeps the economy running.
“We don’t need an economy based on pandering to rich assholes in the hopes they give us money.” - but you do have to discriminate on who gets money. Rich people fulfil this regulatory function. What is the alternative?
I should say that rich people, especially those that find themselves in precarious positions, are motivated to minimise their tax obligations by our economic system. This behaviour is not surprising by any means, and the responsibility is on the government to manage taxation in a proper way, not on the rich.
But the problem is the rich have managed their own taxation for 50 years. They’ve decided through exercising power on the government that they will pay less and less. As they do so, working class conditions worsen. This has been accelerated through multiple bills and decisions implemented by the rich. The most destructive one recently was the citizens United decision.
Tell me, if it’s so easy to just take all your money to Monaco, why would the wealthiest in our country spend so much money and effort to war against the working class for the past 50 years?
Why not just go to Monaco instead of cutting the taxes on rich and corporations again (to still be higher than Monaco)
They can go where they please but taxes are inevitable.
How so? Income taxes are only paid in the country of residence.
Income tax is not really what’s relevant to the rich. It’s pretty easy for them to basically have no taxable income at all. (E.g. that thing Musk did some years ago where he polled Twitter on if he should sell some stock to actually have to pay taxes for once.)
Also, as far as I know, the USA tax your worldwide income even if you live abroad, and there’s an exit tax on your net worth if you renounce citizenship. This is the reason most US billionaires don’t live in e.g. Switzerland.
Yes, US taxes are insane in that regard. I am not american, but I have heard of that. The american tax system is quite notorious.
US taxes are insane in that regard.
I actually think that’s one good decision they made to prevent tax evasion.
I’m sure Trump will eventually get rid of that though.
But they also tax poor people after they leave, as far as I know, which sucks.
Not according to this.
I wouldn’t be so sure. He seems to have(always had, actually) a lot of protectionist sentiments. I think he might feel quite strongly about preventing capital flight.
True. I thought this is what was proposed for some reason. Well, a lot of taxes can still be avoided by leaving the country. I should say, I am in favour of property taxes to reduce real estate speculation, however, other forms of taxation also have problems associated with them that have to be considered.
We don’t tax billionaires to fight the national debt. We tax billionaires to fight BILLIONAIRES.
(But whatever gets us there I guess.)
I should probably have mentioned:
The main point of the post is that despite the connotations of the word “debt”, retiring the debt would be a disastrous mistake.
Even running multi-year neutral (or surplus) budgets would probably cause a recession.
And that’s not a weakness of the US economy, it’s just how fiat currency works.
That sounds like our economy is being held hostage by billionaires. “You can’t take money from us, it’ll make things worse for everyone”. Bullshit - they’ll try to make things worse for everyone but we don’t have to let them, which is exactly the point.
“So your proposal to solve (the debt) is to tax the rich?”
“So your proposal to solve the empty gas tank is to put gas in the tank?”
“So your proposal to solve the dog getting out of the yard is to repair the fence?”
“So your proposal to solve the problem of not being able to see is to put on your glasses?”
Bro. It’s the most obvious solution. It also has the added benefit of being the only one that’s proven to work.
Being a representative whose mind doesn’t immediately jump to that solution is like being a truck driver and not immediately jumping to the solution of slamming on the brakes when you’re speeding toward a red light: it’s not a difference of opinion or policy, it’s dangerous negligence. Why are you holding meetings about this? If you’re dedicated to not slamming on the brakes, just try swerving into the daycare playground or whatever your twisted idea is. Don’t hold a town hall asking for a rubber stamp on plowing through the toddlers, and definitely don’t act surprised when your constituents react in horror and propose using the brakes instead.
Tax the rich!
…And we voted in the wealthiest man in history and a narcissistic luxury hotel magnate, who openly touted a regressive tax plan, to do it?
Somehow they’ve been convinced that the lower/middle class pays taxes so migrants and other minorities can live like the people they elected and Republicans are the ones fighting to protect them from Democrats who want all their money.
Makes perfect sense to some, I’m sure.
Whom also has a factual history of being a con man, rapist, adulterer, and outright horrible person.
What response was he expecting??
“TAX THE RICH!!!”
“So your solution is to tax the rich?”
“Oh… Well now that you put it that way… No I guess not.”
It’s so stupid, it could wrap around to being unbelievable. If only I hadn’t seen so much stupidity in such a small time, that is.
He thought he was talking to temporarily embarrassed millionaires
The district’s gone red for twenty years. So, yes.
Wait till you hear what rich folks say about that plan!
https://patrioticmillionaires.org/
(Spoiler: A lot of them agree)
Warren Buffet has been pointing this out for at least 20 years. Bill Gates for at least 6. It’s crazy how the most famous billionaires haven’t moved the needle.
Their major misstep is failing to purchase every major social media outlet in the country like the conservatives have.
No, their major misstep is spreading Corona through 5G.
If they agree then why aren’t they lobbying these politicians?
For every billionaire that agrees, 99 other billionaires disagree. 1 billionaire isn’t gonna win a fight against 99 billionaires
Edit: And also because they are Millionaires, much less influence lol
They are.
I mean think about it guy you’ve been cutting taxes for the Rich for 50 years and the debt has gone up remarkably. It ain’t rocket science.
From 1980 to 2008 there was a perfect correlation between whether a Republican or Democrat was in the oval office and whether the debt was blowing up insanely or actually being paid off (Clinton, the lone Democratic President during that period, actually had a budget surplus the last two years of his Presidency). Unfortunately, it was still impossible to get Republicans to believe that the ballooning debt wasn’t the Democrats’ fault - “tax and spend liberals” etc. etc. Then Obama joined in the “deficits don’t matter” parade as did Biden, and now you can’t even use actual facts to try and convince people that Republicans are as far from being “fiscal conservatives” as it’s possible to be.
Video I found: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mUwdNOCenco
I’m sure whatever he said after that clip ends was in effort to gaslight that crowd into thinking taxing the rich is somehow a bad thing.
BuT thEYRe jOb CrEAtOrs!!!
ThEYrE pHilANthrOPists!!
INovAtIOn! ThEYrE iNnovATorS!!!
I loved the “job creators” argument because it is super easy to disprove.
If my company that has one employee makes twice the profits off the same number of orders as it made last year Im not hiring anyone because I don’t need to despite being able to afford it. What would make me hire someone else is the volume of orders increasing past the point where I can fill them hence the customers are the job creators.
And customers are created by average people having disposable income. Want jobs created? Tax the rich and spread that to the working class. EZPZ.
Working class working directly for other working class instead of corpos and billionaires is the wealth class’s worst nightmare because it makes it obvious to the average person nobody needs a wealth class, and they are leeching from society without doing anything productive for civilization.
Right?
This came up in another thread but folks were talking about how the rich don’t even like build libraries and theaters anymore. They don’t even pretend to care. They just build bunkers and yachts.
Plus let’s not forget that wages are an expense and thus a tax write-off for a business.
We now have 5 decades of solid evidence that trickle-down economics don’t work. Anyone still claiming the contrary is either a) delusional or b) rich.
Wont take long until they reintroduce taring and feathering.
I wish I could see the rest though. I would love to hear where he went sure that.
The dipshits will continue to vote GOP, don’t worry.
I’ll tax the rich!
He’s a socialist!!
