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.
Ireland Lowered Its Corporate Tax Rate. Here's What Happened.
So lower taxes will trickle down to the average American Consumer?
Q. Since this has been tried before, and failed, why would anyone believe the same thing done again will trickle down this time
A. Those who are insane, apparently.
The Bill pushed by Ryan, and signed by Trump is a shame, and exposes what many of us already know and knew, that Plutocrats supported Trump, and will continue to support him because it is good for their pocket book, and Ryan saw the writing on the wall and will end up in a high six figure job in one of the private sector think tanks or Wall Street Firms, which benefit from the Bill; and they will find ways to keep the largess given to them and not use it to, "stimulate considerable economic growth and GDP".
T&R were slick, as are most con men, they give a few hundred dollars in year one, a little less in year two, and by year three - after the 2020 election, when States Raise taxes, and inflation continues to rise, the poor biddable fools will finally see they were screwed when the see their tax bill in 2021.
Trickle down has worked consistently throughout all the world.
Unless you are in government, you have a job because of trickle down. A rich guy makes a product, makes a company, and hires people to build it.
You show me an impoverished beggar that hires people, and then I'll admit trickle down isn't how the world works.
Of course it is.
What do you think companies do with money they earn in profits?
Walmart spent $10 Billion dollars last year, on remodeling stores, building new stores, and building distribution and infrastructure.
Where do you think that money went? Into the magical ether of the universe? It went to workers, construction jobs, electricians plumbers, flooring worker, new jobs in the company, new truck drivers to deliver to those stores. And on and on and on.*
What do you think Walmart would do if it had more profits? It would remodel more stores, and build more new stores, and hire more people.
By the way, where do you think Walmart gets those products to sell, that pay for all those jobs and wages? From other rich people who sell those products.
Tickle down is how the world works. In fact, even the self-employed mechanic, only has a job because rich people made the cars he works, and rich people make the car parts he uses to fix those cars.
So absolutely everything that there is, is only do to a rich person. The computer you are reading this on, everything about it was supply by a rich person, or rich corporation of people. This software, that runs this forum, is made by a company.
Profits are what improves everything in this world. The more profits, the more improvement. How do you think companies invest in new products, without profits?
Hayek the economist said, the reason socialists don't understand anything about economics, is because if they did, they wouldn't be socialist anymore.
You seem to forget that no company, no individual is going to invest in jackshit unless they are meeting a consumer demand. But yes, sometimes companies like Walmart spend money building new stores and infrastructure. But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking", which is, by definition, a drain on economic output that results in ineffective allocation of resources. And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks. And quite honestly, Hayek himself was very worried that our current system of government would inevitably evolve into a dictatorial democracy, spawned by increasing rent-seeking by corporations. Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.
But sometimes companies like Walmart spend money on non-compete clauses within their lease agreements. That is what is called "rent-seeking",
Rent-seeking is when you use government influence to profit, without producing additional goods.
A contract between WalMart and a lessor has nothing to do with rent-seeking.
And the problem with the Trump tax cuts is that a disproportionate share of the benefit has been, and will be, directed toward rent-seeking, like stock buybacks.
Stock buybacks are not rent-seeking.
Note, one classic example of rent-seeking is political contributions seeking legislative actions resulting in competitive advantages, market distortions, or barriers to entry--an economic benefit without returning any benefits to society in regards to wealth creation.
You finally got one right.
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.
The problem is, in a true free-market, no one could engage in rent seeking. It would not be impossible.
Take for example, ethanol. There is only one reason an ethanol industry exists, and that's because the government makes it exist. There are cheaper, safer, and better quality alternatives to Ethanol as a fuel additive.
The only reason petrol companies use Ethanol, is because the government mandates it. Thus this is rent seeking. The industry is able to force on consumers the cost, and lower quality additive, only because government mandates such rent seeking to happen.
In a real free-market, no one would pay a premium for an inferior product.
I'd be curious to read anything you would like to link to, on the supposed non-compete for former walmart stores.
First, because I happen to actually know of two former walmart stores, that are now other things.
Second because most of the walmart stores I know about are owned by the company, and I can't image someone buying a walmart property, only to have it be rendered un-usable by a non-compete agreement. That sounds like a really large, and expensive lawsuit against Walmart.
That said, I am generally against non-compete agreements, because they are inherently anti-free-market.
That's not what a free-market is about. In fact, originally the entire legal reason for having a ban on non-compete agreements, was specifically because it was a restraint on trade.
Non-compete clause - Wikipedia
You can look it up elsewhere, but it's still a known fact, that non-competes are an anti-capitalist free-market policy.
So any anti-capitalist or anti-free-market argument that involves non-competes, and Intellectually property rights, is in my book an automatic failed argument. You are looking at government encroachment in the market and capitalism, as being a reason for why markets and capitalism don't work? No that's a bad argument.
The drug market is a perfect example. In a real true free-market, there would be no way to "buy up" all the competition, because without patents and intellectual property law, there would be no way to prevent someone else from opening a company to offer the medication. You can't do that in a free-market.
Only with help of government intervention, can prevent others from offering a competing product.
This is why the right-wing finds the left-wing ideology so ridiculous. You look at the effects of bad government policy, and then complain we need even more bad government policy to fix the problems your bad policies created.
If we deregulated the entire pharm-industry, the prices across the entire world, would fall like a rock as other companies found ways to provide the same products at lower prices. Instead with all your idiotic regulations and controls, it's possible for one company to buy ALL the competing products, and then you say "free-markets are not working!"???? RIDICULOUS.
Just flat out ridiculous.
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.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Stock buy backs are there for many reasons. It's not up to you, some random unconnected person, to determine what a company does with it's own money.
It is up to the shareholders. If the shareholders approve of the company using money to buy back stocks.... that's their company. They are the ones who own it. They are the ones who approve of the use of that money. Not you.
Do I come and demand you use your money for more productive purposes than to be on a forum complaining about stock buy backs? No. So to sum up what my parents, and all good parents should teach their kids.... "Nonya".
It's not rent seeking. You are not forced to buy products from that company. If a company actually spent all their money doing stock buy backs, and nothing on improving themselves, the result would be that we would buy stuff from a different company. The reason we keep buying from Walmart, even with their stock buy backs, is because it's a good place to shop for cheap goods.
Like I said before, Walmart spent over ten Billion each of the last three years, in capital investment in the US.
Again, even if they didn't. It's the shareholders of the company, that own the company, that determine what the company should, or shouldn't be involved in. Not you, unless you are a shareholder. I actually am, and I'm very happy with how Walmart is operating.
Lastly, I'm always a little baffled by the complain about stock options, and stock manipulation. You understand that not giving a CEO, or executive, a stock option, does not save the company money. Nor does giving a stock option, cost the company money.
When a CEO sells stock in the company, that he received as compensation, where does that money come from?
It comes from whoever buys the stock, from the CEO. Not the company.
Again, if you complain about the stock buy back, that's on shareholders, not the CEO. But even then, most stock options have a time limit before they can be sold. Meaning, it's not like they can give the CEO $10 Million in stock, and then have a $10 Million buy back the next month, and have that affect the value of the CEOs stock.
Most of the time they have to be vested before they can sell the stock. I have read that average vesting period is over 6 years.
Regardless, it still isn't rent seeking, because no one is being forced to pay for it. You don't have to buy anything from Walmart.
