Socialist/democrats appeal to envy of/hatred of wealthy

How do tariffs tie into this?

Theres a China angle somewhere. Just has to be.

The funny thing about them is that they virtue signal 24/7, yet the entire foundation of their worldview is extortion and theft.

They are the most immoral frickers around, yet pretend like they are the most honorable people in society.

"No action can be virtuous unless it is freely chosen" - Murray Rothbard

Funny since she was created by billionaire George Soros

quote:

---

Socialist/democrats appeal to envy of/hatred of wealthy

---

True. But that is the old way of introducing Marxist forms of government. The new and most active way is cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism appeals to your charity where economic Marxism appeals to your envy. The objective of Cultural Marxists (unbeknownst to many who practice it) is to divide people into smaller and smaller victim groups and their only recourse is remedy through government. This in turn grows government incrementally until it gets to the point were the means of production are owned by the government or the oligarchical few. But whether it's economic Marxism or Cultural Marxism both have the same objective for the masses but not for the controlling elite: equal outcomes.

This is true, but every conservative should be weary that this mentality is growing and the status quo rebuttals aren't good enough. Teddy Roosevelt had to reign in capitalism in order to fight the corporatists and give measured concessions to the other side. This ultimately saved capitalism. Donald Trump had to reign in these horrible trade deals that were for a generation beacons of "free trade", even though they were disastrous. I'd rather Republicans pull their head out of the Paul Ryan segment of the party and wake up before we get Bernie Sanders next time instead of GEOTUS.

If people aren't taking AOC seriously because her facts are wrong(they are) and she misspeaks and contradicts herself, they are making the same mistake Democrats made about Trump. Take her seriously, not literally.

A 70% income tax rate is insane, but not because the underlying logic is wrong. Most people agree with progressive income taxes.

Think of it this way, some of the most hardcore libertarians often advocate for a "fair tax" over a pure flat tax, with a prebate. Why? Because the marginal propensity to consume is not constant. In a world where a marginal propensity to consume is not constant and income taxes are the taxation method of choice, progressive taxes are used.

I don't get why conservatives are losing their mind over this 70% tax thing. I see some pretty outrageous arguments like it's "immoral", and that's just as dumb as calling a wall immoral.

If someone made $10,000,000 I'm 2013, with no deductions to make the math simple, and was taxed at the final rate of 39% above $450,000, then they were paying $3,907,646.00 in taxes. An effective rate of 39.076%.

Under the new tax plan, someone earning that same $10,000,000 in 2019 has an effective tax rate of of 36.381%. AOC's "radical" plan would be break even to the 2013 tax code for someone that earned $10,886,532.96. Identical.

And sure. You could make the argument about motivating people to earn over that amount, but look the the math. I took no deductions. This was income. Not capital gains. And this doesn't take in to effect FICA and payouts of FICA, which would go to the opposite end of the point I'm making. (Just Google why Warren Buffet was partially wrong about his federal tax rate argument.)

This issue with the 70% marginal tax rate is not that it's immoral, it's that it starts to get in to undesirable Laffer Curve regions and that people might start to hide their money. Hauser's Law should be the guiding principle, and conservatives shouldn't go in to hysterics over income tax brackets as if they are sacrosanct.

Let's go back to the AOC tax bracket of adding a new marginal rate for income over $10,000,000. Instead of 70%, let's make it 40%. You know how much you'd have to earn in one year to have to finally pay as much as you'd pay under 2013's brackets? $77,376,550.02. Now, that's wildly different than what's being proposed, and taking it up to 45%, that break even point lowers to $14,990,853.66, but again, this is minutia that is so inconsequential, fixation on it doesn't matter.

Fighting over these top taxes rates are so silly that even getting in to the weeds on it is so stupid and makes the conservatives insane. They should welcome this discussion of a bracket above $10,000,000 if it avoids any and all discussion of that bracket being around the 800k to 1 million mark.

However, this is again is even further missing the mark being made. If conservatives think concessions on tax brackets will fix concerns over income inequality, stagnant wages, rising costs of living, you know, the things that are getting worse in America and had us insanely close to having Bernie Sanders get elected? The

Corporatism, regulatory capture, and greedy businesses are everywhere. The little guy does get screwed sometimes, and the guy making $11 million a year generally gets screwed a little less. If people want to take the Ben Shapiro view on life and act like income inequality is ONLY a result of hard work, and that luck and some shady means don't play a role, so be it, but it will spell the end of the Republican Party for a generation.

Trump was a step in the right direction. He woke the Republicans up to the importance of wage durability and that outsourcing some factory to build so useless and inferior widget in China so a useless good in Wal-Mart has a ton of negative implications that can devastat our communities. Getting a slightly better EBITDA for x corporation's quarterly numbers to beat out investor expectations by a couple of basis points does no better job of enriching our country when we have a heroin epidemic, massive unemployment, falling wages, and fatherless homes piling up. Instead of having innovation in terms of balance sheet manipulation by some PE or consulting firm, maybe we should try and grow better goods and services at home. If Republicans stop here, then AOC's types will rise.

Lots of BS in that post. TDR should not be admired for his tax policies and his treatment of business.

Those of us who remember 70% tax rates and the contortions they cause in tax law and the power it creates for government think the top tax rate is very important.

If you think the massive spending in Washington by health providers to get Obamacare the way they wanted it was corrupt government wait till see the spending behind the thousands of tax law changes that will arise as those subject to a 70% marginally tax seek to avoid it.

Capitalism is the best economic system in the world and the freer the better. To say free trade has at any time has harmed the American economy is simply ignoring facts.

quote:

---

Capitalism is the best economic system in the world and the freer the better. To say free trade has at any time has harmed the American economy is simply ignoring facts.

---

This is why you're stupid. You want to reduce your argument to a fantasy. "To say free trade has at any time has harmed the American economy is don't ignoring facts."

One, this is not something I proposed, and two it's not reality. I get that you're butthurt over this board shitting all over you, but be intellectually honest for once. First off, you can't say that China is "free trade" because they give us "cheaper" goods. They are trade cheats. Propping them up is moronic and not even worth debating. Why you continue to do it is beyond me.

Two, the response to unfair trade practices isn't just shrugging and saying "well dur dur Milton Friedman said it's foreign aid dur dur" Or "dur dur W Bush tried steel tariffs and it didn't work dur dur".

Economists have used tariffs to fight overproduction and dumping plenty, and it's worked. Reagan did it to fight the Japanese semi-conductors dumping. The United States has the resources for the production of semi-conductors, the technology to produce and innovate the market, our companies have the ability to compete with eachother, and we have the infrastructure to get them to market. The United States has manufactured 50% or more of the market since it's inception in the 70s... Except for the 5 years or so when the Japanese were flooding the market. The consumers were flooded with cheap alternatives, mass produced by the Japanese. US companies started closing. Competition went down. Innovation slowed. Factories stopped getting invested and upgraded. Reagan slapped a 100% tariff on those shitty semi-conductors.

And guess what? The tariffs worked. The Japanese gave up, started producing things they were better suited to produce instead, American companies reopened, innovation increased, and to this day, the United States is once again 50% of the producers of semi-conductors on the planet.

But you're so ignorant you would have stopped Reagan if you could have because you're so dumb that any and all tariffs are bad and are somehow "anti-free market" even though they can often times re-engage a multitude of market forces that were being shite on by bad actors.

Three, the free market is a tool, not a religion. It is the greatest force in the world to produce weath and lift people out of poverty. Capitalism understands the nature of supply and demand, and uses private property and self interest to drive the creation of goods and services. Socialism has the greatest capacity to destroy. It denies scarcity, and therefore supply and demand and uses fiat to create goods and services. It stifles innovation and crushes development. That doesn't mean that capitalism or something you want to conflate with capitalism, is the only thing that ever needs to be considered.

Humans aren't perfect economic creatures. We have other things to care about. Friends, family, community, environmental conservation, and countless other things can be protected, nurtured and developed without private property rights being held as the sacrosanct principle that makes all decisions. That doesn't mean we should draw a line of demarcation where we "use" market forces or not, that means we look at the reality of the situation and use the totality of human knowledge to make decisions.

If we know that the hollowing out of the Rust Belt is killing massive amounts of people, ruining families, destroying communities, we should, and whether you like it or not, do, have the ability to ask what's causing it. It has a massive cost. And if that massive costs only benefit is that Wal-Mart's dividends slightly increase and the US GDP goes up, then people have with the power of their vote, the ability to change that. Your denial of this reality is what will March this country to Socialism. Your ignorant mindset only needs to be outnumbered by about 2:1.

More BS.

How about some numbers or some links.