Progressive Propaganda: The Tax Edition

[Winston]

We have been down this road before. Rent seeking does not require government action. I can understand why some entities would want to perpetuate the falsehood that it does, but it does not. From Investopedia, not really one of my favorite sources as it's own bias can be revealed with the examples of rent seeking they provide, but here is thier definition of rent -seeking.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

You see any mention of government in that definition? And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses, where the building owners are prevented from leasing to Walmart competitors. Maybe this example will help. What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%. You got a benefit to society that results in wealth creation for me on that "investment"? No, that is classic rent seeking and it does not involve any government actions other than the protection of intellectual property rights, which it does for everyone.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking. It is money that could have been used for capital improvements, research and development, or market expansion. Activities that make more pie. But stock buybacks used as I have described result, not in the production of more pie, but corporate executives garnishing more of the pie that is already there. Classic rent seeking.

Rent seeking does not require government action.

Rent seeking could include buying government inaction.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

Corporate officers/employees can certainly use corporate resources for personal gain.
The Clinton "Foundation" took bribes from individuals, companies, organizations and foreign governments without creating benefits to society.

And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses,

WalMart signed contracts with corporations or individuals to lease land/buildings.
How are these contracts rent-seeking? What "company, organizational or individual resources" are being unfairly used? Who is unfairly gaining?

What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%.

Yeah, I guess that could be considered rent-seeking. It would only work when there is a barrier to new competitors, like a ridiculously long and expensive approval process for new or generic competitors.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking.

But all shareholders benefit from the higher price caused by the buybacks. Not like the old days when corporate raiders could be fended off by greenmail. In that case the raider and the corporate officers benefitted when company funds were used to buy back shares at above market value in a private transaction.

Using corporate money like that would tend to cause the share price to fall, harming other shareholders, unlike buybacks in the market tending to make prices rise.

​

It seems that you are beginning to understand that rent seeking does not require a government action. Yes, perhaps the most example of rent seeking is the use of political contributions to gain access to favorable government actions. And it is rather ironic that you mentioned rent seeking could be buying government inaction. That is the one "achievement" of the Trump presidency. The complete dismantlement of decades worth of environmental legislation. The gutting of enforcement activities in regards to those regulations that remain. The whole global warming denial campaign is nothing more than rent-seeking activities by outfits like Koch with the soul goal of achieving government inaction. What you and other's fail to realize is that environmental regulations merely prevent corporations from externalizing too much of their cost of production.

Here is the thing. When you and I were kids there was much, much, more competition is almost every single market. You had more choice when it come to where you purchased your groceries, your clothes, your insurance, or even what institution handled your money. There has been a massive consolidation in almost every category of the economy. Those consolidation activities can also be considered rent seeking. And that consolidation has resulted in higher prices for damn near everything because now the suppliers have far more "pricing power". We are virtually surrounded by oligopolies. So much so that corporations get a forty percent higher return on equity here in the United States than they do abroad.

It seems that you are beginning to understand that rent seeking does not require a government action. Yes, perhaps the most example of rent seeking is the use of political contributions to gain access to favorable government actions.

Well, a company raising the price of their product is a business decision, not corruption.
An employee or corporate officer using corporate assets to enrich themselves is corruption and so is
buying government favors. That's why the latter two, but not the former, are usually what is being referenced when the evils of rent-seeking are discussed.

The complete dismantlement of decades worth of environmental legislation.

Sounds scary! Tell me more.

You had more choice when it come to where you purchased your groceries, your clothes, your insurance, or even what institution handled your money.

WalMart may have "killed" competition, but they did it with efficiency and lower prices.
Clothes and insurance (life insurance) are cheaper than they used to be.
I have the ability to have institutions across the world handle my money, not just the local bank
I used to walk to when I updated by passbook savings account.

And that consolidation has resulted in higher prices for damn near everything because now the suppliers have far more "pricing power".

Be more specific. Who has all this pricing power?

So much so that corporations get a forty percent higher return on equity here in the United States than they do abroad.

Link?

And stock buy-backs still aren't rent-seeking.

Here is you an article, and a speech by Elizabeth Warren. I am sure I am wasting my time.

Elizabeth Warren Opens Broad Attack Against Rent-Seeking Oligopolists Like Amazon, Apple, Google, Walmart, Comcast | naked capitalism

But yes, stock buy-backs can be rent seeking when they are used as price manipulation to inflate executive compensation packages. Tell me, why were stock buybacks illegal until the Reagan administration? And I believe it was the other Roosevelt administration that first adopted those restrictions.

This is all really simple. The numbers clearly indicate that the EFFECTIVE marginal tax rate for corporations was too low before the damn Trump tax cut. Numbers like corporate tax percentage of total government revenue, inflated returns on equity, ever climbing gross profit margins across industry sectors. But most importantly, the continued rise in rent seeking activities. Many of the world's leading economists have been pointing this fact out for years. Even Hayek warned of it before his death. The reality is that as effective corporate tax rates decline the incentive to engage in risk taking activities also declines. The least riskiest means of distributing capital is through rent seeking activities. It was easily predictable and legislative actions could have easily prevented much of it.

But yes, stock buy-backs can be rent seeking when they are used as price manipulation to inflate executive compensation packages.
​

"Rent seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits"

Name the individual that is not gaining any benefit, from the stock buy back program, or the stock options, or whatever.
Who is it that is being forced to pay, without gaining benefit?

LMAO.

The company, that is "who" is not benefiting. Does the market capitalization go up after a stock buyback? Hell no, most of the time it actually goes down. Does it make the company more productive? No, it doesn't do jackshit for the company itself. If a company is using it's own money to buy stock instead of investing, or hell, even paying dividends, it means the company sees no profitable investment opportunities. It is flippin giving up. But you know that is not true. The only other logical explanation is that it is little more than an attempt to inflate the market price of the stock, usually because the compensation of executives within the company is based on that price and/or they have stock options and warrants. Stock buybacks, when broken down to it's simplest form, are employee theft, theft of company resources to inflate their compensation without delivering any benefit to the company. It's despicable and has no place in a properly functioning economy.

 

[Andylusion]

Rent seeking does not require government action.

Rent seeking could include buying government inaction.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

Corporate officers/employees can certainly use corporate resources for personal gain.
The Clinton "Foundation" took bribes from individuals, companies, organizations and foreign governments without creating benefits to society.

And tell me, just what is the economic benefit to society of all those albatross empty former Walmarts, those operating under non-compete clauses,

WalMart signed contracts with corporations or individuals to lease land/buildings.
How are these contracts rent-seeking? What "company, organizational or individual resources" are being unfairly used? Who is unfairly gaining?

What if a drug company purchases the only competing drug in a drug class of one of their firms best selling medications. Then shelves the former competitor and jacks the price of their own drug by, oh, 4,000%.

Yeah, I guess that could be considered rent-seeking. It would only work when there is a barrier to new competitors, like a ridiculously long and expensive approval process for new or generic competitors.

And when stock buybacks are merely a tool used to manipulate stock prices in order to generate increased compensation for executives within the company whose compensation is based on stock price and is often supplemented by stock options and warrants, then it becomes rent seeking.

But all shareholders benefit from the higher price caused by the buybacks. Not like the old days when corporate raiders could be fended off by greenmail. In that case the raider and the corporate officers benefitted when company funds were used to buy back shares at above market value in a private transaction.

Using corporate money like that would tend to cause the share price to fall, harming other shareholders, unlike buybacks in the market tending to make prices rise.

​

It seems that you are beginning to understand that rent seeking does not require a government action. Yes, perhaps the most example of rent seeking is the use of political contributions to gain access to favorable government actions. And it is rather ironic that you mentioned rent seeking could be buying government inaction. That is the one "achievement" of the Trump presidency. The complete dismantlement of decades worth of environmental legislation. The gutting of enforcement activities in regards to those regulations that remain. The whole global warming denial campaign is nothing more than rent-seeking activities by outfits like Koch with the soul goal of achieving government inaction. What you and other's fail to realize is that environmental regulations merely prevent corporations from externalizing too much of their cost of production.

Here is the thing. When you and I were kids there was much, much, more competition is almost every single market. You had more choice when it come to where you purchased your groceries, your clothes, your insurance, or even what institution handled your money. There has been a massive consolidation in almost every category of the economy. Those consolidation activities can also be considered rent seeking. And that consolidation has resulted in higher prices for damn near everything because now the suppliers have far more "pricing power". We are virtually surrounded by oligopolies. So much so that corporations get a forty percent higher return on equity here in the United States than they do abroad.

It seems that you are beginning to understand that rent seeking does not require a government action. Yes, perhaps the most example of rent seeking is the use of political contributions to gain access to favorable government actions.

Well, a company raising the price of their product is a business decision, not corruption.
An employee or corporate officer using corporate assets to enrich themselves is corruption and so is
buying government favors. That's why the latter two, but not the former, are usually what is being referenced when the evils of rent-seeking are discussed.

The complete dismantlement of decades worth of environmental legislation.

Sounds scary! Tell me more.

You had more choice when it come to where you purchased your groceries, your clothes, your insurance, or even what institution handled your money.

WalMart may have "killed" competition, but they did it with efficiency and lower prices.
Clothes and insurance (life insurance) are cheaper than they used to be.
I have the ability to have institutions across the world handle my money, not just the local bank
I used to walk to when I updated by passbook savings account.

And that consolidation has resulted in higher prices for damn near everything because now the suppliers have far more "pricing power".

Be more specific. Who has all this pricing power?

So much so that corporations get a forty percent higher return on equity here in the United States than they do abroad.

Link?

And stock buy-backs still aren't rent-seeking.

Here is you an article, and a speech by Elizabeth Warren. I am sure I am wasting my time.

Elizabeth Warren Opens Broad Attack Against Rent-Seeking Oligopolists Like Amazon, Apple, Google, Walmart, Comcast | naked capitalism

But yes, stock buy-backs can be rent seeking when they are used as price manipulation to inflate executive compensation packages. Tell me, why were stock buybacks illegal until the Reagan administration? And I believe it was the other Roosevelt administration that first adopted those restrictions.

This is all really simple. The numbers clearly indicate that the EFFECTIVE marginal tax rate for corporations was too low before the damn Trump tax cut. Numbers like corporate tax percentage of total government revenue, inflated returns on equity, ever climbing gross profit margins across industry sectors. But most importantly, the continued rise in rent seeking activities. Many of the world's leading economists have been pointing this fact out for years. Even Hayek warned of it before his death. The reality is that as effective corporate tax rates decline the incentive to engage in risk taking activities also declines. The least riskiest means of distributing capital is through rent seeking activities. It was easily predictable and legislative actions could have easily prevented much of it.

But yes, stock buy-backs can be rent seeking when they are used as price manipulation to inflate executive compensation packages.
​

"Rent seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits"

Name the individual that is not gaining any benefit, from the stock buy back program, or the stock options, or whatever.
Who is it that is being forced to pay, without gaining benefit?

LMAO.

The company, that is "who" is not benefiting. Does the market capitalization go up after a stock buyback? Hell no, most of the time it actually goes down. Does it make the company more productive? No, it doesn't do jackshit for the company itself. If a company is using it's own money to buy stock instead of investing, or hell, even paying dividends, it means the company sees no profitable investment opportunities. It is flippin giving up. But you know that is not true. The only other logical explanation is that it is little more than an attempt to inflate the market price of the stock, usually because the compensation of executives within the company is based on that price and/or they have stock options and warrants. Stock buybacks, when broken down to it's simplest form, are employee theft, theft of company resources to inflate their compensation without delivering any benefit to the company. It's despicable and has no place in a properly functioning economy.

The company does not benefit from a stock buy back?

First, you need to understand that "the company" includes the shareholders. They are part owners of the company itself. So when you say the company does not benefit, you are including the shareholders.

Companies buying back stock, routinely benefit from this. As a shareholder, a stock buy back, can stabilize the price of shares, which obviously benefit me.

Equally the company benefits from this because they can lower their dividend expenses.

Another benefit is that it can consolidate ownership. Apple famously did a large stock buy back, in order to stave off an attempt by hostile investors to gain a controlling interest in the company.

Sometimes the shareholders find that the company is cash heavy in the bank, but have no current plans for capital investment in the works. Naturally having large savings of cash, without having future increases in revenue, make increasing dividends risky. An alternative to increasing dividends, is to buy back stock. So the shareholders (which is us, the people), get the benefit of having their stocks increase in value, without putting on a future burden of higher dividends.

There are many ways in which the company benefits from a stock buy back.

So, you'll need to come up with someone else you think isn't getting a benefit from it.

Stock buybacks, when broken down to it's simplest form, are employee theft

This is an asinine comment. It's not employee theft.

You, as an employee, are only due.... ONE THING.... the compensation you agreed to.

You are not owed, anything at all, more than what you agreed to be compensated with, when you were hired on. If the company makes $100 Trillion dollars.... if you agreed to work for $10/hour, and they pay you $10/hour, you were paid everything you are due.

It is not employee theft, for the company to spend Trillions, on whatever they want, with the money they earned. You are only due what you agreed to work for.

Beyond that, your comment is even more stupid, since most employees have 401Ks that benefit from the stock buy back. I have stock in the company I work for right now. Are you telling me that them doing a buy back, which makes my stock in their company worth more.... is somehow theft?

Stop talking stupidity.

 

[OnePercenter]

So lower taxes will trickle down to the average American Consumer?

No...it doesn't "trickle down" at all. It floods them in wealth. Just look at the nation right now. Look at the headlines.

Here is your headline.

More Americans need a 2nd job to make ends meet — and it's sending a troubling message about the economy

That's ridiculous.

I make barely $25,000 a year, and I have not needed a 2nd job, for over a decade.

Now there was a time where I did need a second job. And I had to work that job.

Why did I need a second job? Because I borrowed money, and bought things I didn't need.

The only reason an American needs a second job to "make ends meet" is because they are living irresponsibly.

How do I know this, besides my own personal experience? Because I meet people who come here from other countries, and they earn a fraction of the average American, and they make ends meet. Because they don't buy crap they don't need. They live within their means.

When you make the choice to live beyond your income, that is not the fault of the economy, that you need a second job. The only person to blame is the person in the mirror.

Did you know that your net pay is just above food assistance level? See, you do need a raise.

https://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-details/1588

 

[Andylusion]

So lower taxes will trickle down to the average American Consumer?

No...it doesn't "trickle down" at all. It floods them in wealth. Just look at the nation right now. Look at the headlines.

Here is your headline.

More Americans need a 2nd job to make ends meet — and it's sending a troubling message about the economy

That's ridiculous.

I make barely $25,000 a year, and I have not needed a 2nd job, for over a decade.

Now there was a time where I did need a second job. And I had to work that job.

Why did I need a second job? Because I borrowed money, and bought things I didn't need.

The only reason an American needs a second job to "make ends meet" is because they are living irresponsibly.

How do I know this, besides my own personal experience? Because I meet people who come here from other countries, and they earn a fraction of the average American, and they make ends meet. Because they don't buy crap they don't need. They live within their means.

When you make the choice to live beyond your income, that is not the fault of the economy, that you need a second job. The only person to blame is the person in the mirror.

Did you know that your net pay is just above food assistance level? See, you do need a raise.

https://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-details/1588

You don't say?

Let me ask you something.

Say I change the oil in your car. You pay me $25. That's about how much it costs to have your oil changed at any of the oil change places in my city. Just about anywhere you go, it will cost you about $25. Jiffy Lube, Goodyear, Local independent shop, even the dealership is only about $35.

But like you said, that pay is just above food assistance level.

So mr. one percenter, I demand you pay me $100 to change your oil. Will you do that? Because I'll be over as soon as you give me your address, to change your oil.

 

[P@triot]

So lower taxes will trickle down to the average American Consumer?

No...it doesn't "trickle down" at all. It floods them in wealth. Just look at the nation right now. Look at the headlines.

Here is your headline.

More Americans need a 2nd job to make ends meet — and it's sending a troubling message about the economy

Even if that were true - that's the fault of those idiots. They either:

1. Fail to develop the skillsets necessary for a good paying job
2. Fail to live within their means
3. #1 and #2

You can't blame the economy for your own failures when unemployment is at 3.9% and wages are up.

 

[OnePercenter]

So lower taxes will trickle down to the average American Consumer?

No...it doesn't "trickle down" at all. It floods them in wealth. Just look at the nation right now. Look at the headlines.

Here is your headline.

More Americans need a 2nd job to make ends meet — and it's sending a troubling message about the economy

That's ridiculous.

I make barely $25,000 a year, and I have not needed a 2nd job, for over a decade.

Now there was a time where I did need a second job. And I had to work that job.

Why did I need a second job? Because I borrowed money, and bought things I didn't need.

The only reason an American needs a second job to "make ends meet" is because they are living irresponsibly.

How do I know this, besides my own personal experience? Because I meet people who come here from other countries, and they earn a fraction of the average American, and they make ends meet. Because they don't buy crap they don't need. They live within their means.

When you make the choice to live beyond your income, that is not the fault of the economy, that you need a second job. The only person to blame is the person in the mirror.

Did you know that your net pay is just above food assistance level? See, you do need a raise.

https://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-details/1588

You don't say?

Let me ask you something.

Say I change the oil in your car. You pay me $25. That's about how much it costs to have your oil changed at any of the oil change places in my city. Just about anywhere you go, it will cost you about $25. Jiffy Lube, Goodyear, Local independent shop, even the dealership is only about $35.

But like you said, that pay is just above food assistance level.

So mr. one percenter, I demand you pay me $100 to change your oil. Will you do that? Because I'll be over as soon as you give me your address, to change your oil.

Except the average price of an oil change is $37.50, and if you are in the business of doing oil changes you should be doing an average of 6 per day which would be a net of $135.00 per day or $38k+ per year.

 

[Andylusion]

No...it doesn't "trickle down" at all. It floods them in wealth. Just look at the nation right now. Look at the headlines.

Here is your headline.

More Americans need a 2nd job to make ends meet — and it's sending a troubling message about the economy

That's ridiculous.

I make barely $25,000 a year, and I have not needed a 2nd job, for over a decade.

Now there was a time where I did need a second job. And I had to work that job.

Why did I need a second job? Because I borrowed money, and bought things I didn't need.

The only reason an American needs a second job to "make ends meet" is because they are living irresponsibly.

How do I know this, besides my own personal experience? Because I meet people who come here from other countries, and they earn a fraction of the average American, and they make ends meet. Because they don't buy crap they don't need. They live within their means.

When you make the choice to live beyond your income, that is not the fault of the economy, that you need a second job. The only person to blame is the person in the mirror.

Did you know that your net pay is just above food assistance level? See, you do need a raise.

https://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-details/1588

You don't say?

Let me ask you something.

Say I change the oil in your car. You pay me $25. That's about how much it costs to have your oil changed at any of the oil change places in my city. Just about anywhere you go, it will cost you about $25. Jiffy Lube, Goodyear, Local independent shop, even the dealership is only about $35.

But like you said, that pay is just above food assistance level.

So mr. one percenter, I demand you pay me $100 to change your oil. Will you do that? Because I'll be over as soon as you give me your address, to change your oil.

Except the average price of an oil change is $37.50, and if you are in the business of doing oil changes you should be doing an average of 6 per day which would be a net of $135.00 per day or $38k+ per year.

(average price in my area is lower.)

Whoa whoa.... wait wait.... are you suggesting that I have to work harder? That I have to provide more service, by doing MORE oil changes, to get paid more?

No no no no no no...... That's not how this works in lefty world. I do not wish to work harder to get paid more. I don't want to have do more work at the McDonald's than flipping burgers over on a grill, to get paid more. I deserve a raise WITHOUT working more.

I don't want to do more oil changes. I simply demand that you pay me more money for the work I am doing. I'm doing one oil change for you, and that isn't paying my bills. I expect YOU to pay ME $100 for ONE oil change. I'm not working harder to earn more money. Who the heck do you think you are? A slave master? NO! YOU PAY UP YOU GREEDY TYRANT!

 

[OnePercenter]

Here is your headline.

More Americans need a 2nd job to make ends meet — and it's sending a troubling message about the economy

That's ridiculous.

I make barely $25,000 a year, and I have not needed a 2nd job, for over a decade.

Now there was a time where I did need a second job. And I had to work that job.

Why did I need a second job? Because I borrowed money, and bought things I didn't need.

The only reason an American needs a second job to "make ends meet" is because they are living irresponsibly.

How do I know this, besides my own personal experience? Because I meet people who come here from other countries, and they earn a fraction of the average American, and they make ends meet. Because they don't buy crap they don't need. They live within their means.

When you make the choice to live beyond your income, that is not the fault of the economy, that you need a second job. The only person to blame is the person in the mirror.

Did you know that your net pay is just above food assistance level? See, you do need a raise.

https://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-details/1588

You don't say?

Let me ask you something.

Say I change the oil in your car. You pay me $25. That's about how much it costs to have your oil changed at any of the oil change places in my city. Just about anywhere you go, it will cost you about $25. Jiffy Lube, Goodyear, Local independent shop, even the dealership is only about $35.

But like you said, that pay is just above food assistance level.

So mr. one percenter, I demand you pay me $100 to change your oil. Will you do that? Because I'll be over as soon as you give me your address, to change your oil.

Except the average price of an oil change is $37.50, and if you are in the business of doing oil changes you should be doing an average of 6 per day which would be a net of $135.00 per day or $38k+ per year.

(average price in my area is lower.)

Whoa whoa.... wait wait.... are you suggesting that I have to work harder? That I have to provide more service, by doing MORE oil changes, to get paid more?

No no no no no no...... That's not how this works in lefty world. I do not wish to work harder to get paid more. I don't want to have do more work at the McDonald's than flipping burgers over on a grill, to get paid more. I deserve a raise WITHOUT working more.

I don't want to do more oil changes. I simply demand that you pay me more money for the work I am doing. I'm doing one oil change for you, and that isn't paying my bills. I expect YOU to pay ME $100 for ONE oil change. I'm not working harder to earn more money. Who the heck do you think you are? A slave master? NO! YOU PAY UP YOU GREEDY TYRANT!

So you are going to change the oil in one car every three months?

 

[Andylusion]

That's ridiculous.

I make barely $25,000 a year, and I have not needed a 2nd job, for over a decade.

Now there was a time where I did need a second job. And I had to work that job.

Why did I need a second job? Because I borrowed money, and bought things I didn't need.

The only reason an American needs a second job to "make ends meet" is because they are living irresponsibly.

How do I know this, besides my own personal experience? Because I meet people who come here from other countries, and they earn a fraction of the average American, and they make ends meet. Because they don't buy crap they don't need. They live within their means.

When you make the choice to live beyond your income, that is not the fault of the economy, that you need a second job. The only person to blame is the person in the mirror.

Did you know that your net pay is just above food assistance level? See, you do need a raise.

https://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-details/1588

You don't say?

Let me ask you something.

Say I change the oil in your car. You pay me $25. That's about how much it costs to have your oil changed at any of the oil change places in my city. Just about anywhere you go, it will cost you about $25. Jiffy Lube, Goodyear, Local independent shop, even the dealership is only about $35.

But like you said, that pay is just above food assistance level.

So mr. one percenter, I demand you pay me $100 to change your oil. Will you do that? Because I'll be over as soon as you give me your address, to change your oil.

Except the average price of an oil change is $37.50, and if you are in the business of doing oil changes you should be doing an average of 6 per day which would be a net of $135.00 per day or $38k+ per year.

(average price in my area is lower.)

Whoa whoa.... wait wait.... are you suggesting that I have to work harder? That I have to provide more service, by doing MORE oil changes, to get paid more?

No no no no no no...... That's not how this works in lefty world. I do not wish to work harder to get paid more. I don't want to have do more work at the McDonald's than flipping burgers over on a grill, to get paid more. I deserve a raise WITHOUT working more.

I don't want to do more oil changes. I simply demand that you pay me more money for the work I am doing. I'm doing one oil change for you, and that isn't paying my bills. I expect YOU to pay ME $100 for ONE oil change. I'm not working harder to earn more money. Who the heck do you think you are? A slave master? NO! YOU PAY UP YOU GREEDY TYRANT!

So you are going to change the oil in one car every three months?

I think one a day would work fine. 5 a week, is $500 a week. That's $2,000 a month, and will cover all my bills.

 

[P@triot]

Once again we see the left’s entire false narrative about taxes being obliterated by reality. Cupertino, CA is about as left-wing as left-wing gets and even their city council refused to raise taxes on Apple. Why?

The mayor at the time tried to propose higher taxes on the company, but the city council didn’t support the move.

Even the left-wing lunatics recognize that taxes are detrimental to everything and everyone. Handing your hard earned money over to government is a hindrance on expansion, innovation, R&D, job growth, investing in your people, etc.

If You Care About Cities, Apple's New Headquarters Sucks

 

[P@triot]

 

[P@triot]

We don’t have a revenue problem. We never did. We have a spending problem due to lazy, yet greedy, left-wingers.

The root problem is not low taxes. After all, the IRS collected record revenue in fiscal year 2018. The problem is excessive government spending, and no amount of tax increases can fix that.

Until we stop pandering to the greedy and the lazy leftist, we will continue to spiral out of fiscal control until we experience total collapse.

How Congress Can Make Tax Cuts Permanent Without Worsening the Debt

 

[P@triot]

If the left actually "cared" about people like they claim they do, they would never allow this to happen.

Americans on average spent more on taxes than on food and clothing combined in 2017

Spending more to fund government than on the basic necessities of food and clothing?!? Disgusting. That is the greed of the lazy left.

BLS: Americans Spent More on Taxes Than on Food, Clothing Combined in 2017

 

[P@triot]

I’m confused progressives...you people have been adamant that taxes have absolutely no impact on businesses. That corporations don’t expand or locate based on taxes.

Amazon announced Tuesday it’s splitting its second headquarters between Long Island City, New York, and Arlington, Virginia, and the corporation will receive tax incentive packages worth more than $2 billion to build in both locations.

And yet here is the ultimate progressive corporation - lead by the ultimate left-wing lunatic - specifically locating to state’s granting them special tax breaks. Mind you, these are very progressive states who perpetuate the left-wing false narrative about taxes. And mind you, this is after Amazon stop construction in Seattle after the idiot left-wing city council passed a resolution to hit Amazon with even higher taxes than they previously had.

The entire left-wing narrative on taxes obliterated in one neat little story. It perfectly illustrates the difference between conservatives (who embrace reality) and progressives (who embrace blind ideology).

New York and Virginia Ready to Give Massive Tax Incentives to Amazon

 

[g5000]

I’m confused progressives...you people have been adamant that taxes have absolutely no impact on businesses. That corporations don’t expand or locate based on taxes.

I see what you did there.

What has been argued is that corporations don't decide to MOVE based mostly on taxes. There are often bigger considerations, and that is the case with Amazon ADDING a technology center.

This Is What Amazon Is Really Looking For in Its New 'HQ2' Headquarters

“Companies like Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple are unique in that talent dwarfs everything else,” said Calandra Cruickshank, founder and CEO of StateBook International, an online marketplace that compiles information for companies looking to expand, told Bloomberg. “Workforce is the number one factor driving site selection decisions today.”

Because HQ2 is expected to create as many as 50,000 jobs at its new $5 billion facility, Amazon needs its winning city to produce a sizable staff. It noted in its request for proposals that HQ2’s eventual location “must be sufficiently close to a significant population center” as well as have a “highly educated labor pool” and “strong university system.” The company didn’t return MONEY’s request for further details.

Cities that made Amazon’s top 20 include Boston, Chicago, New York City and the Washington D.C. metro area. The short list left off places like Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Detroit — some of which have publicly blamed a talent shortage for their downfall.

 

[P@triot]

What has been argued is that corporations don't decide to MOVE based mostly on taxes.

That’s not true at all. That’s exactly what progressives have argued for decades now. They are all over this board claiming Republicans ran jobs overseas with “tax subsidies”. Oops.

The next time you get your story straight G, will be the first time you ever got your story straight.

 

[P@triot]

Yet another example of the left caught in their lies about taxes. If lower taxes doesn't create jobs and generate tax revenue for government, why did devout communist Bill de Blasio give Amazon an exclusive, sweetheart tax deal to bring Amazon to New York? Oops.

“Walmart does not belong in New York City,” de Blasio declares, while defending the city’s generous tax breaks for Amazon.

And yet the left-wing minions are still dumb enough to believe every false narrative their masters have told them about taxes.

NYC Rolls Out the Red Carpet for Amazon, but Bans Walmart

 

[P@triot]

Don’t ever buy into the progressive propaganda...

Taxes: Critics of the Trump tax cuts said they would blow a hole in the deficit. Yet individual income taxes climbed 6% in the just-ended fiscal year 2018, as the economy grew faster and created more jobs than expected.

The left lies about everything - especially taxes. History has indisputably proven that low taxes, low regulations, and limited government results in economic prosperity.

Trump Tax-Cut Results: Federal Revenues Hit All-Time Highs | Investor's Business Daily

 

[Wry Catcher]

Don’t ever buy into the progressive propaganda...

Taxes: Critics of the Trump tax cuts said they would blow a hole in the deficit. Yet individual income taxes climbed 6% in the just-ended fiscal year 2018, as the economy grew faster and created more jobs than expected.

The left lies about everything - especially taxes. History has indisputably proven that low taxes, low regulations, and limited government results in economic prosperity.

Trump Tax-Cut Results: Federal Revenues Hit All-Time Highs | Investor's Business Daily

Maybe in the short term, and then only the few, not the many; pollution created a fire on a river; killed human beings by fouling the air and water and soil; put mercury into our Oceans and polluted my favorite steak - Swordfish.

Grow up, profit is not the be all, end all for those of us with values and principles.

 

[P@triot]

Grow up, profit is not the be all, end all for those of us with values and principles.

Profit means absolutely nothing to me, snowflake. But here is the dirty little secret that you left-wing lunatics, who are completely ignorant of economics, don’t understand: no profits, no jobs.

The idiotic policy that you support ends in Venezuela - where everyone wallows in extreme poverty.