Why we have to redistribute income through taxes

[The Rabbi]

It's an idiotic point for two reasonsL
1) He conflates wealth with income
2) If wealth were truly zero sum then GDP would never increase.
But Dad has a crack addiction so is hardly in any shape to use logic.

"There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

TO COMPLEX FOR YOU HUH?

What you've said is that corporate income for a given year is corporate income for a given year. It's a tautology. If we look at a snapshot of the economy at a point in time, of course it isn't going to change because you are not looking at what happens over time. You're looking at a single point in time.

Your sylogism is an exercise in pure idiocy.

Furthermore, if you judge the "sum" of transaction purely in terms of money, you have failed to consider the fact that the government creates hundreds of billions of dollars every year simply by changing some ones and zeros stored in a computer.

I could go on and on ripping your "logic" to shreds, but I have a life to live.

Dad is an obvious crack addict so critical thinking isnt within the realm of possibility.

 

[bripat9643]

"There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

TO COMPLEX FOR YOU HUH?

What you've said is that corporate income for a given year is corporate income for a given year. It's a tautology. If we look at a snapshot of the economy at a point in time, of course it isn't going to change because you are not looking at what happens over time. You're looking at a single point in time.

Your sylogism is an exercise in pure idiocy.

Furthermore, if you judge the "sum" of transaction purely in terms of money, you have failed to consider the fact that the government creates hundreds of billions of dollars every year simply by changing some ones and zeros stored in a computer.

I could go on and on ripping your "logic" to shreds, but I have a life to live.

Dad is an obvious crack addict so critical thinking isnt within the realm of possibility.

You should check out the thread where he tries to claim that Americans are getting a better deal from Social Security where they get a 0% return on their money and have nothing to leave their heirs when they die to the Chilean privatized pension system that earns 9% for it's members and pays out $80K/yr and leaves them with a nest egg of at least $1,000,000 if they contribute only $200 a month to it.

 

[Crystalclear]

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.















The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.

Laissez faire has never existed, so you can't say it doesn't work.

Closest thing the US has had to it the last 100 years ended in the GOP great depression and Dubya's great recession!





Weird how NO nation has ANYTHING like it though right? EVER!

The government-regulated economy of nowadays is not that doing that well either.

 

[Andylusion]

What you've said is that corporate income for a given year is corporate income for a given year. It's a tautology. If we look at a snapshot of the economy at a point in time, of course it isn't going to change because you are not looking at what happens over time. You're looking at a single point in time.

Your sylogism is an exercise in pure idiocy.

Furthermore, if you judge the "sum" of transaction purely in terms of money, you have failed to consider the fact that the government creates hundreds of billions of dollars every year simply by changing some ones and zeros stored in a computer.

I could go on and on ripping your "logic" to shreds, but I have a life to live.

Dad is an obvious crack addict so critical thinking isnt within the realm of possibility.

You should check out the thread where he tries to claim that Americans are getting a better deal from Social Security where they get a 0% return on their money and have nothing to leave their heirs when they die to the Chilean privatized pension system that earns 9% for it's members and pays out $80K/yr and leaves them with a nest egg of at least $1,000,000 if they contribute only $200 a month to it.

Compare Socialist inSecurity to any 401K, and it's vastly better.