Trump is wrong. Tax cuts don't equal growth."

Jesus loved the poor and the least amonst us; he can have them. As for me, I have no use for the useless. I love the rich; they make me richer. Thanks Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Andrew Carnegie. Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, John Salk, Louis Pasteur, and on, and on, and on. As to the drunks pissing in their pants as the lay in the gutter, get the hell up and start living, or at least have the guts to blow your brains out and quit being a nuisance.

For further enlightenment on how to handle the least amongst us.


BTW: I have cancer, RA, COPD, A fractured back and ribs from osteoporosis and falls, torn rotator cuffs, left shoulder replacement, and on, and on, but I don't hold my hand out looking for hand held. I do what's necessary to make my life the best it can be and don't think its anybody else's responsibility. In other words, I don't run for the government's gun to rob my betters to fill my belly. That's what free men with integrity and self-esteem do. Cowards go and get the government's gun. I'd rather be a free man instead of a ward of the state.




And time is running short--Starjet

 

Lower taxes benefits an economy and promotes growth.

It may sound simple and it is by any measure:

-Any consumer market is also the driver for GDP (Gross Domestic Product). When there is more money at the consumer level there is more potential for business growth that potentially supplies that demand.
-ANY and ALL taxes do not directly support economic growth. Instead they are siphoned through government programs. (re. Redistribution)
-Taxes can be compounded. Income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, and numerous property and luxury taxes may be quelling enough but there are CGT (Capital Gains Tax) that can take away money being returned to a consumer-based market.
-When workers net more, they spend more. (This formulation is not advanced science).
-When a business or agency experiences an increase in taxation, those costs are consequentially passed on to the purchaser and eventually the end-consumer. (This is for any industry including health care or insurance)
-Net Revenue or Net Earnings are bottom-line cash flow. The more that is garnered by a government, the less that is available for spending or investing in a Capitalism based economy.

Why should taxes not favor the biggest contributors to a free-market society ? Why should taxes not be loosened for those who could provide the largest benefit to economic growth?

Taxation in the USA date back to the Sugar Tax of 1764. Much has been learned (and unlearned) since then. Our freedoms have been fought for and earned through the bloodshed of treasonists and believers of a free nation.

While we do not argue and fight for less taxation, we allow tyranny to creep into the acceptance of future generations. We allow history to be lost to the hand of the government that "knows best". Much of the uncertainty comes from trusting those that we have put into position to make decisions for us while they 'vacation' on our funding.

Vote to keep what you earn. It's your money.

 

You just keep proving you understand business. Labor is an EXPENSE. Tell me if the business loses money this month do the workers share in that loss or do they still get paid? If it goes bankrupt do they have to help cover the lose?

If you want to share in the profits then invest your money and share the risk. And the profits wouldn't be made if they didn't have their copiers and computers and machinery what's your point?

 

The time to apply fertilizer is when you actually have something of value that needs growth support. If you just spread it randomly, you are only smearing bovine excrement around the neighborhood and no good will come of it.

 

The top 20% pay 95% of the income taxes. The highest ever.

 

Two things: First, your number of 150 million is way overstated. It includes people who died of starvation in famines and casualties of WWII. It also includes mostly criminals who were executed under Stalin. And secondly, Stalin was a butcher. You would find it very, very difficult to find any measurable number of Marxists today who are happy about him. He is an outcast. So your number, which should be between 50 and 100 million, is nonsense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

The reason you harbor such fear as you described is that you do not know, and you don't let yourself find out, what Marxists are up to today. I've tried to tell you but you refuse to hear.

 

So IOW I was correct: profits are impossible with no workers.

 

Thank you for noticing and admitting it.

-in the theory and practice of capitalist accounting.

What the hell??!!!! You want capitalist to have all benefits and no risk??

You still didn't answer my question, but we both knew you wouldn't.

 

Well, we are all waiting for the Wizard of BS to actually have something of value which needs growth support.

 

Thanks for sharing your words of nonsense. Ayn Rand and her fellow atheists and supply-side socialists love the corporate welfare state and
its hatred of democratic principles. The corporate welfare state is so reliant on government that it does not even exist without government.
Corporations are governmental created entities, which requires government not only for its birth, but government to provide the roads,
court system, schools, police dept, fire dept, ect for its ability to conduct commerce.

 

So do as Miss Rand suggests, end government interference in the marketplace, return to lassie faire capitalism and you'll kill your monster,the corporate welfare state. Miss Rand was no more a supporter of the Orreen Boyles of the world then you are or I am. She considered them villains and traitors.

Nor is it true that you need a government to have roads, or railroad tracks, or public transportation, or public education, or fire departments. You need a government for only one reason--to protect the rights of man.

Nor is it true that you need a government to provide a safety net for the poor and needy, or to ensure equality. It is not true that another man's tears is a claim on another man's soul, and that that principle requires the government to take what is mine and to give it to some one else who is not as good as me. That would be the same as breaking LeBron James legs to give me a chance to beat him in basketball. In other words, "need" is not a justification for the slaughter of the best (as Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Mao, and Pol Pot did, and now beginning in Venezuela with Maduro), and the enslavement of the rest. "Need" is not a moral justification for the existence of a government. The only moral justification for a government is to ensure liberty.

To see what happens to the poor, the middle class, the rich, the individual, when "need" becomes a justification for increasing government power over the life of the individual, look what's happening in North Korea, and what has happened to Venezuela. If horror and despair really repulse you, the last think you'd be arguing for is government interference and control of the market place and against Ayn Rand's support and promotion of capitalism, reason, and individual rights.

So let me make it perfectly clear to any and all: My life is mine to live, not God's to command, my neighbors' to rob, society's to rule, nor the government's to dictate to or to enslave. I need a government to protect my rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, not to violate them in the name of public highways or to trample them in name of public education--which is nothing but government indoctrination and a prelude to non-thinking automatons constantly voting the corrupt and power lusters into office, and creates thugs and killers such as BLM and ANTIFA.

Objectivism promotes capitalism because its a free system; it promotes a free system because it promotes reason; it promotes reason because that is man means of survival, and for his reason to work he must be free to think for himself. If that's what you call nonsense, if that is what you hate, abhor, and fear, then good luck to you--you are going to need it.

Ayn Rand: "Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.

This is the means of subordinating “might” to “right.” This is the American concept of “a government of laws and not of men.”--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html


Radical Capitalist w/ Yaron Brook: Religion, Liberty and Happiness


The essence of life, man reaching for his highest

Heroes by Bryan Larsen at Cordair

http://cordair.com/

 

See the thread on it.

 

No its nit impossible. It depends on the business, if the owner doesn't employ anyone does that mean he cannot make a profit? Workers are onky needed if there is a job that needs it in the business just like if the bhsiness neesa a computer. A big printing company cannot make a profit without printing presses can it? That is an expense ti the business.

What is your point other than you do not understand labor is an expense. If you want to share in the profits of a business then riak your capital in it.

You are claimin the workers should share in the profits so should they shar equally in loses?

 

Sorry typo as you certainly do not.

In reality.

Tell me if the business loses money this month do the workers share in that loss or do they still get paid? If it goes bankrupt do they have to help cover the lose?

 

Ok I see I need to spell out what I thought was obvious..... I was saying that if you take a business that employs workers and you remove those workers, –maybe they go on strike for example, –that business cannot go on. That business cannot make any profit with just the owner(s) present working alone. Workers are necessary for THAT business to function and to make a profit. So that business cannot, from that point forward with no workers, make a profit and pay for maintenance and buy new equipment, etc etc etc. And therefore we can see that the work of the workers is what built the business with the help of the planning, guidance, strategies, etc. of the business owner. I throw that in because I don't want to go down a side track of arguing over whether the business owner "did nothing to contribute".... I'm not saying ALL of the value of the business was produced only by the workers and no one else. I'm saying that the workers played a huge part in it and they cannot persuade the business owner to share the profits accordingly. The law allows him to keep as much as he can. Clear?

I already told you, labor is an "expense" according to the capitalist laws on accounting practices. Apart from those laws it is not an "expense". And even if I'm in a partnership and two of us labor to earn an income painting houses, our labor is not an "expense". It is income... a different term. So get off this "expense" trip.

Of course!! And more than that, I'm claiming that the workers should have an equal say in the running of the business in every respect including how much the boss is paid.

 

No you need to prove your statement of fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to make a profit with employees. Then explain why labor which is an expense has a claim on the profits.

No more than if they need a copier.

Labor just supplied the labor for which it is compensated, that gives labor no claim or right to profits.

It is an expense to the owner regardless of any law. Does the law make electricity and home expense? Does it make your food an expense?

You REALLY know nothing about business and running one income and expense are two totally different. And what is income to the employee is an expense to the owner.

Why when the business is not their property nor do they have anything invested in it. Should they also be responsible for any losses incurred. If the business goes bankrupt are they responsible to pay off the loses to any creditors?

 

You're cutting and pasting dishonestly in order to eliminate the real question and make it look like you have the upper hand when you don't, and that I'm wrong. If you want to discuss this further you must first go back to that post of mine that you pretended to quote and deal with the spirit and intent and fact of my comments. I laid it out sufficiently for you. Deal with it or I'm done and you go down as dishonest. I am not going to repeat myself.

 

Oh, and BTW....

I never said it's impossible to make a profit with employees.

 

Because it's 100% BS politics...

 

How can you believe wealthy don't pay enough but believe the 75 million Americans who pay no income taxes is enough?

The joint is named the UNITED States of America, meaning all of us should be UNITED in funding the government which we demand...

 

It must be your ears that "clam up and run" because I never have. Go find one of my replies to the question. There are many.

Got hard evidence?

 

You got to be kidding. What you are promoting is the free (to have other to socialize business cost) markets. A system of pure tyranny, where a few will
live well at the expense of the many: Plutocratic Socialism. In a capitalistic system, demand rivals supply in importance, which entails that wealth
be redistributed downward to capitalize the demand-side of the economic equation.

 

Your "definitions" aside, have you never heard of "ability to pay"? Listen, I'll answer this once more for you.... During the last 30 years the rich have gotten enormously richer yet the working population didn't see any growth in their real wages. In the last 15 years almost all new income went to the top. They hogged it. They didn't share it with those very workers who made it possible. The top took all of it, and so it's time for them to give it back. Even Nick Hanauer says "I’m a rich guy -- really rich. I invested early in Amazon and created and sold several businesses. You may have seen me in Robert Reich's movie, Inequality For All, saying I don't need a tax cut. Well, it's still true. I don't need a tax cut. And this week, Republicans in Congress are trying desperately to give me one. Republicans pay for their massive giveaway to big corporations and the wealthy by cutting Medicare and Medicaid, adding to the national debt, and raising taxes on low-income Americans. I’m asking you -- begging you really -- to shame Trump and congressional Republicans for trying to give me a tax cut. Please join thousands of fellow Americans on this petition to Congress. Demand not one penny of tax cuts for big corporations and rich people like me."

The right is focused on misrepresentations, distortions, lies, and spin to persuade us to grant the rich far greater wealth in exchange for increased poverty. Their game plan has for years been to create a huge debt while complaining about it (the Democrats helped with that debt) so they can justify cutting public services and programs and then give the rich tax cut on the basis of the lie that it will create jobs. They know better. They just want to shift as much money and income FROM the public and TO the rich as they can, and they're doing it. This is the very definition of corruption. Drain the swamp??? HA!!!! Not at all.

 

STOP CALLING IT "SOCIALISM"!!! Socialism is worker ownership and control of industry!

 

Plutocratic socialism is all about redistribution of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the richest of the rich, just like in communist and
other third-world countries where a few control economic and political power.