Why the rich will definitely pay their taxes

[H1TMANactual]

What's up fucker?

Clinton raised income tax but he lowered the capital gains tax and the revenue increased. Taxes are obviously tied to incentive to work. It's called the Laffer curve. You can research it if you're open to learning the truth as you said. Curiously, where do you think jobs come from?

Another thing you need to look up is capital flight. There is plenty of studies published so you can do the research.

I don't think you should make videos on economics broski.

[unassumption]

I think their idea is there will be less people producing it if there are higher taxes as it costs more to make it which means the product will cost more....but that doesn't translate to reality. Plus when companies have a lot of money to lose they can be 'vindictive' which could lead to them changing policy and wining in the long run, kind of like going on strike.

[truthofevolution]

@unassumption your latter point is the one i addressed. If they are vindictive, then their competition will take the customers.

[unassumption]

@truthofevolution

I was trying to counter that point, with how big a war-chest they've got to survive on if some other small company decided to compete. I don't trust competition to be able to change things quickly when a small number of companies have most of the power at the moment in most industries, I doubt some small company could do serious damage to them for a while and if they make things hard for that time they might win, as they seem to be doing now despite credit unions.

[truthofevolution]

@unassumption hey I see what youre saying, but even if that was true and small businesses were not as competitive and big businesses would retaliate, we would have seen an enormous recession when clinton raised taxes on the rich and when in the 50s and 60s the taxes were 90% on the rich. The fact that this did not happen is evidence that that theory is false.

[truthofevolution]

@unassumption in any case the point that I was making was that big businesses dont just have competition from small businesses, but that they have competition from OTHER big businesses. So if 9/10 competing companies decide to stop investing or raise product cost, and 1 guy decided to keep investing or keep prices low then that guy will get all the customers and force the other 9 companies to lower costs again.

[unassumption]

@truthofevolution

it depends how competative things are to start with I guess.

[CHAS1422]

Hugette Clark had $400,000,000 dollars in an inherited trust fund. The idea that the rich create jobs is fully negated by this example. Hugette never contributed to society, nor did anyone benefit from the money she hoarded. Perhaps the employed numbered less than 10-20. Half of those were money grubbing lawyers and accountants. The rich perpetuate myths of rich people creating jobs.

[hawanja]

Well done video, and excellent points.

[melowar78]

Awesome video. Another thing that I think would help the economy is destroy monopolies.

[truthofevolution]

@melowar78 thats actually a really good point and one discussed in history under teddy roosevelt.

[ReignbowSmite]

GOOD, Raise the cost of goods, people don't need a new goddamn cellphone every year.

Product obsolescence, these fuckers have been bleeding us dry for many many decades. Maybe it's time that NONE of us (never mind the middle class) can afford this throw away fucking culture any more, including the bourgeois. Capitalism requires constant growth and expansion.

[DynaCatlovesme]

I've never heard the conservative argument made the way you stated it.

[truthofevolution]

@DynaCatlovesme ive heard congressmen and youtubers use it a few times. Heres an argument which is similar that the rich will stop investing with higher tax increases. To which I respond similarly that the one company that decides to absorb costs and keep investing will be more competitive. I dont really have time to keep looking for a more accurate argument right now sorry.

heritage. o r g/research/reports/2010/11/oba­mas-tax-hikes-on-high-income-e­arners-will-hurt-the-poor-and-­everyone-else

[truthofevolution]

@DynaCatlovesme hey Ive found a direct source for the conservative argument

fairtax. o r g /site/PageServer?pagename=abou­t_faq_answers

passage of interest: "Corporations pass on their tax burden in the form of higher prices to consumers, lower wages to workers, and/or lower returns to investors. The idea that taxing a corporation reduces taxes on, say the working poor, is a cruel hoax. "

[bleunt]

Lately a lot of conservatives have decided to give the internet credit for the economic boom during the Clinton years. Fortunately, it's not the only example of how raising taxes on the rich creates a stronger middle class. But let's say it was all about the internet, and had nothing to do with taxes. That would still contradict the republican message, since it was largely the government that invested in the internet.

Also, where the hell have you been? :p

[truthofevolution]

@bleunt lol sorry ive been busy with classes. I just got my first break this thanksgiving. I dont even have summers off because I have to do my PhD rotations while MDs get to relax. :(

Your point is a good one.

even if the internet was the reason and the govt had nothing to do with it. Thats the beauty of it. The focus is on them. They have nowhere to run. They have to explain their argument.

[truthofevolution]

@bleunt sorry i didnt explain my point clearly in the last comment. Even if the conservatives argue that the govt had nothing to do with clinton's growth. That does nothing to dent my argument bc its not about what made the govt grow. That argument is just a distraction. The point is that the economy didnt decline as their economic predicts. that is enough to destroy it.

[anubis2814]

The conservatives love worshiping the free market until it works for tax cut. I am not against capitalism any more than I am against hammers, it is a useful tool in some cases, but if you use it on everything, you will just break a lot of things.

[truthofevolution]

@anubis2814 thats very well said about hammers. is that your quote or someone else's? i want to use it and reference it appropriately

[M0US3P0T4TO]

@truthofevolution From Wikipedia:

The concept known as the law of the instrument, Maslow's hammer, or a golden hammer is an over-reliance on a familiar tool; as Abraham Maslow said in 1966, "It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

[anubis2814]

@truthofevolution I think I made it up, but theres always a chance that someone else has too.