Progressive Propaganda: The Tax Edition

[P@triot]

pollution...killed human beings by fouling the air and water and soil;

No humans have died from “pollution”, Drama Queen.

 

[P@triot]

The ignorance of the left on display...

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 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.

Bryce Harper's $330M contract: How much will he owe Uncle Sam?

 

[P@triot]

An obvious and fundamental principle that is too complex for the left to grasp...

“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.

The government (and the poor) doesn’t have anything. They only take that which doesn’t belong to them.

 

[P@triot]

Progressives don’t understand basic economics...

 

[P@triot]

By refusing to acknowledge even the most indisputable truths, the progressive propaganda machine has destroyed itself.

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.

Low income families keeping $3,000 more of their own money than in previous years is huge.

Don’t Believe the Fake News. Tax Cuts for Everyday Americans Are Real.

 

[P@triot]

Despite the left’s massive propaganda campaign to convince citizens otherwise, defense is but a sliver of the federal government budget. It is the unconstitutional entitlements which are bankrupting this nation.

In 1 Chart, How Your Taxes Are Spent

 

[P@triot]

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.

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.

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.

Today, You Pay Your Federal Taxes. Tomorrow Is Real Tax Freedom Day.

 

[P@triot]

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.

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.

The so-called "War on Poverty" has created more poverty.

How Your 2019 Taxes Will Be Spent

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

"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.

 

[P@triot]

And once again the Dumbocrats slip and accidentally admit the truth. Remember, this is a party that is adamant that taxes do not adversely affect a business. They claim the increased cost of taxes has no negative impact.

And yet here is a Dumbocrat claiming that tampons need to be "tax-free" so they can be affordable. Oops. He just let their dirty little secret slip. They aren't called Dumbocrats for nothing.

 

[P@triot]

Once again we see real life proving that the left’s entire position that taxes don’t impact businesses, jobs, or growth, is an outrageous lie.

Ford gets incentives to invest $1.5 billion in Metro Detroit, add 3,000 jobs

 

[Terri4Trump]

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.

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.

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.

Democrats have no clue when it comes to tax policy

 

[P@triot]

Everything the left says about taxes is an outrageous lie.

Here's What the Tax Cuts Have Done for America in 2 Years

 

[P@triot]

It’s basic economics...

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%.

Everything the left says about taxes is an outrageous lie.

How Cutting the Corporate Tax Rate Is Helping Everyone

 

[P@triot]

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.

 

[P@triot]

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.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

While I agree with the concept, I find that specific aspect of the video dubious.

It is true that I bought stuff online, that I found in the store. But it was never a sales tax issue. You can just flat out find the same product at a lower price online. With or without sales tax.

However, I would wonder if perhaps in Chicago where the sales tax is 10.25%, that perhaps there, it would be a factor.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

The problem with a flat tax, is that it doesn't allow for the illusion that the rich are going to pay for everything the lower and middle class want.

And selling illusions to stupid left-wingers is how you gain political power. That's how you do it. You have to convince the idiots among us, that they can get free stuff, and others will pay for it.

You do that by having a progressive tax, that makes the illusion the rich are paying for it. Then you can jack up taxes on everyone, because you convinced idiots that the rich are funding it.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

"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.

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.

That's not true. Corruption is a result of economic socialism. Corruption naturally follows the break down of capitalism by government.

I could give you endless examples, and you would ignore all of them, but I'll give you three.

1. The Chavez daughter rice scandal.

Hugo Chávez's Favorite Daughter Implicated In Argentinian Rice Corruption Scandal

The favorite daughter of late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is in the news again, implicated in a corruption scandal involving Argentina’s rice industry.

www.foxnews.com

Hugo Chavez's daughter was running (maybe still is), a rice money laundering scheme, where rice was purchased with Venezuelan government contracts from Argentina, funneled through a Caribbean country (because the Bolivar is worth nothing), and into Venezuela at inflated prices... netting a huge profit for the Chavez girls.

Now let me ask you... under free-market capitalism... would that even be possible?

No. In fact, under free market capitalism, Venezuela was a net exporter of rice. They produced more rice than the entire country ate. They sold rice, and fed the rest of latin America.

So how in the world, did they setup a scheme to funnel rice from Argentina to the Caribbean, into Venezuela, a country that produces more rice than they eat.... at inflated prices? How would that even work?

Wouldn't all the other private rice farmers, and private stores, and private restaurants all under cut the governments prices?

Well yes they would... if Hugo Chavez had not driven them all out of business, with land redistribution, price controls, and nationalizing companies.

It is directly because of Socialism, that resulted in corruption.

2. India and the Licensing Raj (or Permit Raj). While the licensing raj has been reduced somewhat since economic liberalization in the 1990s... it's still huge in India.

To do absolutely anything in India, you need permit. And not just one permit, but usually dozens of permits. And sometimes to get the permit, you needed to have people give approval, to get the permit.

And as you can imagine, it's a pretty quick step from "needing approval" to "slipping someone $200" to get approval.

A simple example, is still true even to this day. Just to have a conference in Mumbai, you need 10 permits, and must get permission from 26 different officials.

One graphic that shows that the licence-permit raj is alive and kicking in India

Organising an event in Mumbai takes 10 NOCs and a visit to 26 offices, explaining India’s terrible 142nd position in the World Bank’s ease of doing business ranking.

scroll.in

Just to hold.... a conference. Not even run a business, but just to have a conference. According to a company that does events in India, Jerry Seinfeld was to have a show in India, only to have it canceled because they couldn't get the 26 officials to sign off on it.... and thus it never happened. I would guess it was because Jerry Seinfeld didn't pay the kick backs required to have the event.

Again, would any of that happen in a free-market capitalist system? Of course not. You wouldn't need to pay any officials anything, to have a show. You would just rent the place, and have the show, or concert or conference. But no in the highly regulated government controlled economy of India, where the rich pay off the politicians because they have to, and the poor.... well the simply don't.

This again is one of the reasons I've always said the left-wing pro-regulation people are in the pockets of the wealthy more than free-market capitalists like myself. Regulations inherently benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

And we see this in the US. People screamed about Epipen, but then you read the history... auto injectors, and insulin has been around for decades. It was the FDA that prevented anyone from competing against Epi-pen. The FDA created a monopoly, not Epipen. In a Free-market capitalist system, there would have been alternatives on the market for decades by now.

3. The high US tax rates in the 1950s.



When you have government regulations, or this case, massive government taxes you open the door widely for corruption.

Why?

Because take $30 Million dollars. You have a tax rate of say, 37%. You could spend a million dollars lobbying congress for an exemption that could drop you down to the next tax bracket, or even two tax brackets. That would drop you to 32%. Saving you, 5% in taxes. That's $1.5 Million. Is that worth it?

Would that really be worth the trouble? Of course not.

But say the income tax is 91%, like it was in the 1950s, and you are a rich movie mogul, and you could get an exemption that drops you from the 91% to 30% or lower.

Would saving $18 Million be worth spending a million, to grease some government officials to get that exemption?

Of course it would.

Every single time the government extends it's reach into the economy, the result is NATURALLY that corruption will increase.

Why do you think Microsoft became a massive government lobbying company? Before the late 1990s when government started anti-trust investigations into Microsoft (which were ridiculous)... Microsoft didn't spend a dime lobbying government.

But as soon as government started trying to control their business.... Microsoft has been a routine, and loyal lobbying company ever since. Which should tell you why government started the investigation in the first place. It was mafia protection money. As soon as Microsoft started shelling out the money, instantly the government started backing off the idiotic claims, and plans to break Microsoft up. As long as you pay the Mafia, the Mafia leaves you alone.

This is why we on the right-wing, don't want a mafia government regulating and controlling every aspect of the economy, because we understand that Government reach, and corruption, go hand in hand.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

So what if the company doesn't benefit? What is that to anyone else? You claimed people were being harmed, and instead now are saying the company doesn't benefit from it?

I assume you understand that this is a strange claim for a left-wing person to make?

There are thousands of threads, and millions of posts on this forum complaining that companies are benefiting too much, making too much profit, growing too large. Left-wingers claim they are shutting out competitors, and destroying small business, and all the rest of their empty mindless accusations.

Now you are saying companies shouldn't buy back stock, because it doesn't benefit them?

Strange position to take.

Moreover, what business is it of yours, what someone else does with their money? Is it your money? No.

Would you like me to come look at your finances and say "This spending here, does not benefit you"? You would say "Nonya Bizness!" And rightly so!

Well, if Apple computer decides to spend $14 Billion dollars buying back shares of its own stock.... what is that to you? Unless you can show some harm to YOU.... why does it matter to you what Apple does with its own money?

The only people who should be concerned should be the people who run the company, and the people who own the company, meaning the shareholders.

No one else's opinion matters, or is relevant.

And as a shareholder in Apple computer, I personally do have a position on the stock buy back in 2014.....

And my position on the buy back was.... pretty darn good move. Shares naturally went up in price.

Share Buyback

What Is Share Buyback? Share buyback or share repurchase is a corporate activity wherein the firm reclaims its shares. It certainly assists in

www.wallstreetmojo.com

There are a number of reasons that a company might want to buy back stock.

One reason, that a lot of people fail to realize (including myself until reading about it just now), was that so many companies have employee stock purchase programs. Well that's new stock on the market. Walmart is not buying stock from outsiders, and giving it to their employees. They are issuing employees stock in the company.

So every single paycheck, the total amount of stock on the market is actually going up.

Naturally this would eventually dilute the stock on the market, and could eventually lead to an easy hostile take over.

And this is what happened to Apple in the early 2010s, when some investors threatened possibly taking over the company. Which to my understand, directly lead to the company stock repurchase program.

So there are several very valid reason to have a stock buy back.