|
Someone sent me the Reagan grades/GPA redistribution video. I merged some of the responses from this thread and emailed him this, which might be helpful to some of you because I know this one is wildly popular:I posted:To answer your question directly, the reason this video is wrong is because the analogy of wealth to academic grading is fundamentally flawed. I'm no economist so I'm not sure about the whole GDP thing. I apologize. But here comes his response, which was actually pretty civil considering. Anybody have any materials to refute the whole "rich people create jobs" thing? He posted:The cartoon Reagan was just stating that when the people who work the hardest to be successful become punished for that hard work, and their work is distributed to people who didn't work hard, it's human nature to work less out of frustration. When those companies aren't hiring new people because they're paying more to the government, well there are going to be less jobs. Those companies are also under so much pressure from the govt which is supposed to be free market in this country, that they can't expand as much. You see, when you punish the top, there are still going to be less jobs for those at the bottom. You can have either a free market where people at the bottom who want to work will have jobs available to them put in place by the higher ups. Or you can punish those job makers and force them to give money to the bottom. When you take the latter route, the whole system is pulled down. The classroom grading system was a great way to show this I think. f#a# fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Dec 13, 2012 |
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
The job makers don't loving make jobs, end of story. People spending money and creating demand creates jobs. Also wealth isn't static, it will go up or it will go down. If job creators created jobs because they have money, we'd be loving swimming in jobs. How does he explain that away, taxes on the wealthy are the lowest they've been in living memory while corporate profits are at an all time high, yet the fabled job creators aren't creating jobs. Wealthy people just sit on their cash, they don't create demand. If you don't redistribute it down, history has more than amply shown it will go up since the people at the top hold all the cards as it is. And many nations in Europe are doing quite well, including the northern nations which by American standards are probably people's republics. You can inform him Europe is a collection of over three dozen nations, not just Greece. e: Or just point out, it is him, he is the socialist welfare queen. It doesn't matter if he takes direct assistance or not. Given the concentration of wealth in the nation, unless he makes a considerable amount of money, there is no way he pays enough in taxes to cover the implied services he receives. 24/7 police and fire coverage, road building/paving, snow removal, funds put into maintaining the water supply and power grid, public parks and libraries, public schools if he ever plans to have kids, the oversight to the food he eats, the list goes on. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
Fandyien posted:I love the whole out of the mouths of babes schtick those things have going on. Where did any adult get the idea that a child should be a font of political wisdom? These are people who haven't learned to tie their own shoes, and we look to them for advice on drug policy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:No, the idea is that babies can see what's wrong with your ideas. Not that, you know, perhaps things are more complicated in the real world they like to imagine they have a firm grasp of. It's probably also some "kids are so innocent they see the simple truth of the world!" bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
f#a# posted:Someone sent me the Reagan grades/GPA redistribution video. I merged some of the responses from this thread and emailed him this, which might be helpful to some of you because I know this one is wildly popular: Give him a link to FRED and ask him to find a relationship between top marginal tax rates and any economic indicator he'd like. You could suggest GDP, per capita GDP and unemployment rate to get him started. It's not a goddamn philosophical debate, it's about data, and the data is pretty unambiguous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:The job makers don't loving make jobs, end of story. People spending money and creating demand creates jobs. Also wealth isn't static, it will go up or it will go down. If job creators created jobs because they have money, we'd be loving swimming in jobs. How does he explain that away, taxes on the wealthy are the lowest they've been in living memory while corporate profits are at an all time high, yet the fabled job creators aren't creating jobs. Wealthy people just sit on their cash, they don't create demand. If you don't redistribute it down, history has more than amply shown it will go up since the people at the top hold all the cards as it is. And many nations in Europe are doing quite well, including the northern nations which by American standards are probably people's republics. You can inform him Europe is a collection of over three dozen nations, not just Greece. This. Economic growth and job creation comes from expansion of demand, not expansion of supply. The way capitalism and human self-interest works, if there's money to be made (even if it's $10,000 instead of $50,000 because your tax rate is 80% instead of 0) someone will step in and make it. That money is there to be made because people are there with money willing to buy whatever product or service you're providing. If no one wants the product, some mythical job creator won't step in and say "I am bequeathing to you these jobs because I can." That's pure wealth worshipping bullshit. In fact, the more you pay your workers, or the more the government provides for them, the more consumption and therefore demand rises, and the more the economy grows. But as baw mentioned, it's not just about theory and philosophy, it's about statistics. Statistically, the highest economic growth in US history came with the highest marginal tax rates (data here if you really want it, from the 1940s to the 1970s. When JFK 'cut tax rates and created growth,' he was literally cutting the top marginal tax rate from 91%, which is what it had been from 1946 to the 1960s, during the mythical American golden age of the 1950s when economic growth was booming (under a Republican no less, albeit one who was left-wing of Obama) to 77%. And since those rates were slashed more than in half under Reagan (from 70% to 28%), real wages have stagnated while corporate profits and inequality have skyrocketed and a momentary boom was followed by the worst economic crash in almost a century. Hell, just link him to this article, which includes this amazing graph:  Yeah, tax rates are too high. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:This. Economic growth and job creation comes from expansion of demand, not expansion of supply. The way capitalism and human self-interest works, if there's money to be made (even if it's $10,000 instead of $50,000 because your tax rate is 80% instead of 0) someone will step in and make it. That money is there to be made because people are there with money willing to buy whatever product or service you're providing. If no one wants the product, some mythical job creator won't step in and say "I am bequeathing to you these jobs because I can." That's pure wealth worshipping bullshit. In fact, the more you pay your workers, or the more the government provides for them, the more consumption and therefore demand rises, and the more the economy grows. To add on to this, any return is favorable to nothing because if you just sit on that money then it will lose value due to inflation and the time value of money (Which are very closely linked)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
f#a# posted:Someone sent me the Reagan grades/GPA redistribution video. I merged some of the responses from this thread and emailed him this, which might be helpful to some of you because I know this one is wildly popular: It might be handy to have a source for the bit on record corporate profits, because these types of people tend to believe the right's rhetoric that all businesses are struggling: http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6 Really, you should hit home the fact that if a business is meeting demand with its current workforce, it isn't going to hire more people simply because it's taxes are lower; netting more profit without raising demand. Employees are expensive, so businesses hire only as a last resort when they can't meet demand. Maybe you can convince him that further lowering the taxes of the top 2% won't lead to job growth. I think that's probably as far as you can get with this guy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:This. Economic growth and job creation comes from expansion of demand, not expansion of supply. The way capitalism and human self-interest works, if there's money to be made (even if it's $10,000 instead of $50,000 because your tax rate is 80% instead of 0) someone will step in and make it. That money is there to be made because people are there with money willing to buy whatever product or service you're providing. If no one wants the product, some mythical job creator won't step in and say "I am bequeathing to you these jobs because I can." That's pure wealth worshipping bullshit. In fact, the more you pay your workers, or the more the government provides for them, the more consumption and therefore demand rises, and the more the economy grows. I'm sure everyone has noticed this, but just in case anyone else hasn't, notice how the last time we had low tax rates on the rich (ie the 20s) we had the goddamn Great Depression, and now that they came down again, we have the biggest depression, aside from the Great Depression, in US history. If only our national political discourse were at all informed by history, or even reality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
Also, employers are only taxed on what's left AFTER they pay employees. Taxes don't take away money from hiring employees (business expenses), it takes away money from the money the "job creator" takes home for their own personal use. If they're spending that money on expanding their business, it doesn't get taxed. What's more, I suspect there may in fact be a connection between high tax rates and job growth and employee wages; and conversely a connection between low tax rates and slow job growth and slow wage growth. Let's say you make $10M, and the top tax rate is 90%. If you keep another $1M for yourself in profit, you'll actually end up giving $900,000 to the government and only get to keep $100,000 for yourself. Or you could take that $1M and leave it in your company and use it to expand and strengthen your business. Or pay your employees more to boost employee morale/loyalty. But when tax rates are low, and you're going to get to keep $650,000 of it, keeping it all for yourself is a much more appealing choice. I don't know if this is actually a real thing with data to support it; but I know if it was me, paying 90% to the government would really make me think twice about whether paying that money to myself as profit, is the best use of that revenue. Sarion fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:I'd say they're pretty close, as my liberal friends on FB generally only post something politically-related if A)it bothers them (like the recent attacks on Labor in Michigan) or B)they find it humorous. Whereas my conservative friends tend to come across as the FB equivalent of frothing at the mouth, as they constantly post whatever rantings and ravings pop into their mind, along with every conservative meme they can get their hands on, regardless of how batshit insane all of it ends up making them sound. Maybe I'm biased, but what few conservatives/republicans I have on my Facebook all have terrible grammar and can't make or understand an argument unless it devolves into talking points. I remember a few months back a friend of mine who happens to be conservative mentioned that Reagan has only ever lowered taxes, never raised them. I found several sources stating that yes, he in fact did raise taxes at some point. But, because taxes were lower at the end of his presidency, I was wrong. Apparently, if something is low at the end of a given time period, it can never have been higher! She's an Earth Science major to boot (who denies climate change). Also, any source that said otherwise was liberal by nature and thus biased. My more liberal-minded friends are all too concerned with human rights to care about defending positions that are based on nothing. I guess a clear way to describe the attitudes on my wall are as follows: Before election results were finalized: Liberals: "Go Obama! 4 more years!" Conservatives: "Don't let the leeches win again!" After election results were finalized: Liberals: "4 more years!  "Conservatives: "You loving sheep!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
Expansion is Kinda taxed. Purchases of equipment come from post-tax income, but the cost of them can be depreciated over time depending upon the nature of the purchase. Consumables are a pre-tax expense, however, and there are some things that allow for expansion costs to become a pre-tax item as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
f#a#'s friend posted:The cartoon Reagan was just stating that when the people who work the hardest to be successful become punished for that hard work, and their work is distributed to people who didn't work hard, it's human nature to work less out of frustration. I want to pause right here to say that the bolded sentence is a solid argument for socialism and worker's owning the means of production. If all the workers owned the company collectively they would work harder and society would be better for it, rather than having their work distributed to people who didn't work hard in their company (capitalist investors). The rest of his response has been pretty well handled above. His view that taxation is theft and punishment is going to be a sticking point in any arguments you give, whether or not the facts support your claims, because he's going to view it all through that lens. Probably best to start with dismantling that view and move from there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
The whole "creator vs taker" and "poor people are lazy" and "anyone taking government assistance is a parasite that doesn't work hard" really angers me. And poor(er) people are some of the ones who repeat it!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
myron cope posted:The whole "creator vs taker" and "poor people are lazy" and "anyone taking government assistance is a parasite that doesn't work hard" really angers me. And poor(er) people are some of the ones who repeat it!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 21:59
|
|
ultimateforce posted:
This unironically makes a good point.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
myron cope posted:The whole "creator vs taker" and "poor people are lazy" and "anyone taking government assistance is a parasite that doesn't work hard" really angers me. And poor(er) people are some of the ones who repeat it! I always like to turn this argument back around on conservatives by pointing out that it's nearly always the low-wage workers in factories, offices, farms, etc. who do the actual "producing." All the wealthy owners/CEOs/investors provide is the initial funding and high-level decision making.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
Devil Wears Wings posted:I always like to turn this argument back around on conservatives by pointing out that it's nearly always the low-wage workers in factories, offices, farms, etc. who do the actual "producing." All the wealthy owners/CEOs/investors provide is the initial funding and high-level decision making. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value Socialism!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:This unironically makes a good point. People don't get physically addicted to guns. EDIT: Nevermind, I figured out what you meant!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:Maybe I'm biased, but what few conservatives/republicans I have on my Facebook all have terrible grammar and can't make or understand an argument unless it devolves into talking points. I remember a few months back a friend of mine who happens to be conservative mentioned that Reagan has only ever lowered taxes, never raised them. I found several sources stating that yes, he in fact did raise taxes at some point. But, because taxes were lower at the end of his presidency, I was wrong. Apparently, if something is low at the end of a given time period, it can never have been higher! She's an Earth Science major to boot (who denies climate change). Also, any source that said otherwise was liberal by nature and thus biased. I had some friends on FB literally deactivate their accounts after Obama was re-elected, because they couldn't handle the fact that all their image macros and memes and Republican talking points had been so soundly refuted. Either that or they couldn't handle the amount of "BOOYA  " victory posts they got from liberal friends who were finally able to throw all the "You silly Obots  " poo poo back in their faces.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:This unironically makes a good point. Hahahaha I didn't even consider it from that angle. Time to legalize heroin and meth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Hahahaha I didn't even consider it from that angle. Time to legalize heroin and meth. But probably it's someone who is oblivious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Might've been posted by a libertarian, who knows? Potentially, but making the counterargument to legalize meth and heroin is a way to illustrate actual flaw in the reasoning of that image: the purpose of making something illegal from a practical standpoint is to minimize the activity in question (or at least that should be the purpose of laws, but hey, human run society). The argument that because making drugs illegal doesn't stop all drug use therefore we shouldn't ban guns ignores that fact in it's judgments. Well, it also serves as a comedy response to get people to hem and haw and stutter out of their talking point view a bit too. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Potentially, but making the counterargument to legalize meth and heroin is a way to illustrate actual flaw in the reasoning of that image: the purpose of making something illegal from a practical standpoint is to minimize the activity in question (or at least that should be the purpose of laws, but hey, human run society). The argument that because making drugs illegal doesn't stop all drug use therefore we shouldn't ban guns ignores that fact in it's judgments. If you're going to do this it'd be better to just go with "clearly we should just legalize murder then", in case you do run into a libertarian. Although to be fair, in case you run into a libertarian murder probably should be legal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:Is that rule an internal union thing or is it a law?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 03:33
|
|
|
Sarion posted:I don't know if this is actually a real thing with data to support it; but I know if it was me, paying 90% to the government would really make me think twice about whether paying that money to myself as profit, is the best use of that revenue. If you're a small business owner, it definitely makes more sense to reinvest the money back into the company, especially if doing so keeps your income below the top marginal bracket. Then when you decide to sell the business, you claim it as a capital gain and pay the lower 15% tax.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Although to be fair, in case you run into a libertarian murder probably should be legal. Now now, killing a libertarian would be violating his property rights! He has a right to his body (unless his parents sold him into slavery as a child) and by depriving him of that property you are doing something morally wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
ultimateforce posted:
Guns are addictive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 08:50
|
|
|
I don't agree with their firearms policy but I do agree with their apple sauce after nap time policy I only take policy advice from people who poo poo in their own pants. Let's check what Dick Morris has to say.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 09:18
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:This unironically makes a good point. But when someone uses heroin or meth, it's entirely possible for no-one to notice. When someone fires a gun, it makes a loud noise and may leave a corpse, both of which are very noticeable and lead to the police, as they say, making enquiries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 09:59
|
|
Teddles posted:But when someone uses heroin or meth, it's entirely possible for no-one to notice. When someone fires a gun, it makes a loud noise and may leave a corpse, both of which are very noticeable and lead to the police, as they say, making enquiries. Really? I've fired guns hundreds of times and I've never left a corpse. Maybe I'm doing it wrong? VideoTapir posted:Guns are addictive. If you buy one, it's hard not to buy another. Look at TFR! Firearms allows the physically weak to defend themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYi_hq2p1Ac
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 10:06
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Yeah man, all those people shooting up on "heroine". Comic book shops will be the first casualties of the War on Heroine, as the DEA will seize all materials featuring Wonder Woman, Batgirl, She-Hulk, Sue Storm, etc. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 10:15
|
|
|
Teddles posted:But when someone uses heroin or meth, it's entirely possible for no-one to notice. When someone fires a gun, it makes a loud noise and may leave a corpse, both of which are very noticeable and lead to the police, as they say, making enquiries. You know that people who shoot guns don't kill everyone at all times, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 14:06
|
|
|
LP97S posted:You know that people who shoot guns don't kill everyone at all times, right? Hence the 'may' in 'may leave a corpse'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 14:25
|
|
|
Guns are also just as easy to produce at home as meth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 14:30
|
|
Alterian posted:Guns are also just as easy to produce at home as meth. Actually easier, and don't require as many nasty chemicals.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Guns are addictive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:You joke, but I really don't know anyone who's only a little bit into guns. Everyone's either not interested or has spent enough on guns and ammo to buy a small car. This is exactly what people from countries with stricter gun laws mean when they talk about America's "gun culture." A large portion of our population is so obsessed with their firearms that we can't even have a reasonable discussion regarding gun control without these people crying about "guvmint takin' away MAH GUNS!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:You joke, but I really don't know anyone who's only a little bit into guns. Everyone's either not interested or has spent enough on guns and ammo to buy a small car. That's 'talk about guns' culture, I have plenty of friends that I've gone to the range with that have never talked about it anywhere else we were. Not saying there isn't an insane gun culture here but the loudest idiots aren't representative of everyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
Yeah, well the debate is about to get a whole lot stupider on Facebook: Shooting at Elementary School in Connecticut kills at least 20, including little kids. Time for Fox News to roll out the "now is not an appropriate time to discuss gun control, it's too soon, people are still grieving" bobble-heads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:33
|
|