Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The left is ignorant of basic economics and is unwilling to study history (mostly because their master's know that studying history will open their eyes) so they are doomed to repeat their failed policies of the past.Former President Ronald Reagan understood the unintended consequences and work disincentives that tax policy creates, because he lived it personally. The new generation of “tax-the-rich” politicians have enjoyed the last three decades of historically low tax rates because of Reagan -- and the lessons of our high-taxes policy past are lost on them.
The government (and the poor) doesn’t have anything. They only take that which doesn’t belong to them.“Taxes cuts were not the government’s money… it was the people’s money in the first place,” Tim Chapman, Executive Director of Heritage Action told the audience at CPAC on Thursday.
Low income families keeping $3,000 more of their own money than in previous years is huge.Some of the biggest tax cuts are being enjoyed by the lowest-income Americans. A typical family of four got a $2,917 cut this year.
Conservatives are forced to labor for 105 days for no money at all because progressives are parasites. The 16th Amendment outlawed slavery - and this is pure slavery. Taking my money against my will and giving it to somebody who performed absolutely no service for me in return is the very definition of slavery.In total, the report estimates, Americans will work for 105 days of the year to pay their collective $5.42 trillion tax bill—a figure equal to about 29% of Americans’ incomes.
The so-called "War on Poverty" has created more poverty.President George W. Bush increased anti-poverty spending from $3,700 to $4,800 per household, and President Obama expanded it past $6,000, mostly due to ObamaCare costs.
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.Grow up, profit is not the be all, end all for those of us with values and principles.
The idiotic policy that you support ends in Venezuela - where everyone wallows in extreme poverty.
Everything the left says about taxes is an outrageous lie. And the left knows it too. But they are more interested in getting their hands on your money than they are in prosperity.
The indisputable, undeniable fact is that low taxes brings in businesses, creates jobs, and stimulates considerable economic growth and GDP.Many U.S.-based multinationals are finding luck with Ireland’s low corporate tax rate—and that 12.5% rate has been a pot of gold for the Irish economy as well.
In 2015, the Irish economy was estimated to have grown by 26.3% through foreign companies opening operations and providing high-paying jobs, including about 700 U.S. companies currently operating in the country.
Ireland Lowered Its Corporate Tax Rate. Here's What Happened.
Everything the left says about taxes is an outrageous lie.Before the ’80s, those countries had corporate tax rates ranging from percentages in the mid-30s up to nearly 60% in Germany and Sweden. Such levels are unheard of today. In fact, every Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nation now has a corporate tax rate under 35%.
At around the 17:00 mark of the video below, they discuss how consumers would drive to a local bookstore, browse and find what they want, but then drive home and order it off of Amazon to save on the sales tax (even though they were right there, had the item in their hand, and could have gone home with it).
Everything the left says is a lie. Taxes have a profound impact on the economy. And they drive decisions.
There is absolutely 0 excuse for not having a flat tax. The Dumbocrats don’t want it because they would no longer be able to hide their true tax rates from the American people.
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.Grow up, profit is not the be all, end all for those of us with values and principles.
The idiotic policy that you support ends in Venezuela - where everyone wallows in extreme poverty.
"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."
post 199
You're such a damn liar, and not too bright and clearly ignorant. Venezuela is how it is because of corruption, the swamp there like here has not been drained.
"The event in question is the "killer fog" that hit London for several days in 1952. First appearing on 5 December, it lifted four days later with an estimated death toll of at least 12,000 people, with around 150,000 hospitalizations, and thousands of undocumented animal deaths."
Scientists finally know what caused a mysterious fog to kill 12,000 people in London in 1952
But I digress, your claim on the economy and the false argument I don't support profits is a damn lie; I don't support exploitation and corruption which has lead to a wide gap between the haves (the few) and the many, have not's.
The have nots are the producers and the consumers, when they can't afford to buy a new toaster, shit will hit the fan big time. Dumb shits like you believe the profits and salary of the few will trickle down; the Biggest LIE and the BIGGEST JOKE every played on the people.
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.