Economy Trump tax cuts 6 months later: it was exactly what critics projected - everyone but the rich suffers

[Deleted member 159002]

You're kinda dodging my point with a funny

What point? You said the government shouldn't decide what impairs you. That's exactly what the government does when it grants you the right to own property and not be assaulted. I assume you want the government to do those things, right?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

And THIS is the center of your ignorance. You think that your completely uninformed definition of "rightful" controls, because it's the easiest to wrap your mind around.

And it's very easily deconstructed. Under your line of thinking, any line of income is legitimate, no matter whether it was acquired through coercion, exploitation, or assistance: the fact that it exists is self-authenticating. A slaveowner's kids could have $100 million in wealth that they invest and make fat returns on. 100 kids of former slaves could have $10 to their names each, even though their parents were the primary force in building the slaveowners' $100 million war chest. Yet you would say that taxing that $100 million and those $10 amounts equally is "fair" because the slaveowners' kids "rightfully earned" that money.

ODB doesn't seem to understand that the money a person is required to pay in taxes is not money he's rightfully earned.

 

[Trotsky]

ODB doesn't seem to understand that the money a person is required to pay in taxes is not money he's rightfully earned.

Probably the single hardest thing to explain to someone is that income is not inherently earned in a market based on transactions facilitated by government. The entire idea that a Wall Street executive who makes 1 billion a year is naturally, fundamentally, and objectively entitled to that money as an inherent earning of his labor - just on the basis that our current set of laws distribute to him - is so asinine.

Like I said, it's a self-authenticating dogma. No matter what, whatever someone's income stream is, what it is based on, and what was done by the government and other people in the world to create it, it's sacred.

 

[Revolver]

I’m rich and was against these tax cuts. I don’t really need the extra money. It’s funny seeing the poor posters itt love the fact that they’re getting an extra $20 a paycheck lol

 

[HomerThompson]

I’m rich and was against these tax cuts. I don’t really need the extra money. It’s funny seeing the poor posters itt love the fact that they’re getting an extra $20 a paycheck lol

Never change, Revo.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Probably the single hardest thing to explain to someone is that income is not inherently earned in a market based on transactions facilitated by government. The entire idea that a Wall Street executive who makes 1 billion a year is naturally, fundamentally, and objectively entitled to that money as an inherent earning of his labor - just on the basis that our current set of laws distribute to him - is so asinine.

Like I said, it's a self-authenticating dogma. No matter what, whatever someone's income stream is, what it is based on, and what was done by the government and other people in the world to create it, it's sacred.

Even if someone's income came entirely from strenuous labor, the money he's required to pay in taxes still wouldn't be his earnings.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

I’m rich and was against these tax cuts. I don’t really need the extra money. It’s funny seeing the poor posters itt love the fact that they’re getting an extra $20 a paycheck lol

 

[Throttlehead]

Farmer and I are both against subsidies... and yea farmers do build roads at times. Especially when starting out

Where do they build roads from and to? Have you ever been on a farm?

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

What point? You said the government shouldn't decide what impairs you. That's exactly what the government does when it grants you the right to own property and not be assaulted. I assume you want the government to do those things, right?

So the government could justifiably tax whatever they deem necessary as long as some minimum level of comfort is achieved?

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

It's not the study of anything. To study something, the rubber should meet the road eventually: you should check if the predictions you make are accurate. Praxeology does the opposite of this. It instead makes ridiculous bullshit excuses in order to rationalize why we shouldn't even check if its predictions are correct, such as...



A little time out here: what's particularly funny is that you rolled up to the war room all ''ha, I bet these motherfuckers never heard of the austrian or chicago school of economics!''

It really feels like 2011 again.



Mises had one policy making job in his lifetime, and that was as an economic advisor to Engelbert Dollfuss in the early 30's. He only had the one job because, well, it didn't go so well when praxeology met practice. Shacking up with any fascist they can find all for the sake of ''Liberalism'' is actually a fairly common trend among classical liberals/libertarians: you have Mises supporting the Freikorps, Mussolini, Dollfuss (writing that they literally saved European civilization lololol); Hayek writing in support of Salazar and Pinochet; and ''the Chicago boys'' drawing up policy for Pinochet (with disastrous results, mind you).

I notice that the people that "liked" your post are big government statists. I wonder if they would ever agree in any way with say, Milton Friedman?

Do you believe in free market economics like Friedman did?

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Man, this mistake has been pointed out to you several times and here you are repeating it. You're a god damn farmer and claiming that the source of all wealth is people? SMH.

Rock solid? More like Swiss cheese.

There's no such thing as a crop without an individual human intelligence to create, cultivate, and utilize said crop.

Natural resources are of no good to anyone until an individual human intelligence discovers a way to use it.

For the vast majority of human history, crude oil was a useless sludge that came out of the ground. It took the spark of an individual human intelligence to change that useless sludge into the fuel that sustains our world.

Agriculture is the use of individual human intelligence to guide and redirect the processes of Mother Nature to best suit their own needs.

This same principle applies to every level of agriculture. The seeds, the soil, watering schedules, pesticide and herbicide application, I could go on and on.

It's an axiomatic truth that has yet to be disproven:

The source of all wealth is individual human intelligence.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I notice that the people that "liked" your post are big government statists. I wonder if they would ever agree in any way with say, Milton Friedman?

Do you believe in free market economics like Friedman did?

This is a weird classification. I'm certainly not a big gov't statist, and I'd bet that I agree with Friedman on more than you do.

 

[kpt018]

There's no such thing as a crop without an individual human intelligence to create, cultivate, and utilize said crop.

Natural resources are of no good to anyone until an individual human intelligence discovers a way to use it.

For the vast majority of human history, crude oil was a useless sludge that came out of the ground. It took the spark of an individual human intelligence to change that useless sludge into the fuel that sustains our world.

Agriculture is the use of individual human intelligence to guide and redirect the processes of Mother Nature to best suit their own needs.

This same principle applies to every level of agriculture. The seeds, the soil, watering schedules, pesticide and herbicide application, I could go on and on.

It's an axiomatic truth that has yet to be disproven:

The source of all wealth is individual human intelligence.

Dude, you are completely ignoring the obvious fact that there is no crop without seeds, soil, etc.. It is utterly ridiculous to say human intelligence is the source of all wealth and it's even worse coming from a farmer.

If you want to say it requires human intelligence to harvest natural resources, fine. If you want to say it's our greatest resource, fine. But to say it's 100% of wealth is flat out wrong.

And you can keep saying it's yet to be disproven but it has been disproven several times.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

That's just simply bollocks . The government has played an instrumental role in providing the conditions that led to certain individuals being successful and society as a whole.

What about the G.I Bill .
What about government contracts .
Government research labs (Sandia , Los Alomos, Oak Ridge etc..) and the research they do , some of which directly benefits industry .
Infrastructure built by the government that is critical to America being the successful society it is. From Dams to the Highways.
What about farm subsides and government grants for universities doing research into crop science.
What about government funded universities/colleges.
What the internet that you are using.

You conservatives always denying the massive helping hand that government has provided and provides. No body is a self-made person, unless you got stuck on a deserted island and created something

Edit
Lol didn't even read the above post before responding , and see now that he too mentions the island scenario.

Reread what I said. I choose my words very carefully.

The individual is the source of all wealth.

The government is nothing more than an entity comprised of individuals.

The government does not exist independent or superior to the individuals that comprise it, in the same way that the the human body doesn't exist independent or superior to the cells that comprise it.

Once wealth is discovered, the expansion of that wealth can, and often has been a collaborative effort among many. But the individual human intelligence is the only source of all wealth.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

So the government could justifiably tax whatever they deem necessary as long as some minimum level of comfort is achieved?

A just government ensures that its subjects have a decent opportunity to flourish. Progressive taxation is the taxation system most conducive to that.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Dude, you are completely ignoring the obvious fact that there is no crop without seeds, soil, etc.. It is utterly ridiculous to say human intelligence is the source of all wealth and it's even worse coming from a farmer.

If you want to say it requires human intelligence to harvest natural resources, fine. If you want to say it's our greatest resource, fine. But to say it's 100% of wealth is flat out wrong.

And you can keep saying it's yet to be disproven but it has been disproven several times.

Simply pointing out the existence of seeds doesn't prove anything. That's like saying the existence of iron ore disproves the fact that individual human intelligence is needed to go from ore to refined steel.

What you're describing is the barbarians survival of hunting and foraging. Farming and ranching is the redirecting and guiding of natural processes via individual human intelligence in a way that will create surplus.

This is absolutely impossible without individual human intelligence. Until it can be proven otherwise my argument stands.

 

[Tylerl90]

Idk about anybody else but I am thoroughly enjoying my tax cuts and have definitely benefited. And no, I am far from being rich.

 

[AVX]

This is just another example of the left trying to get out in front of good tax policy and sway perception away from it. Once people file income taxes next year and seeing in real terms how much they have been cut there is no going back. The left has positioned itself to lose for the next 40 years lololol

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

This is a weird classification. I'm certainly not a big gov't statist, and I'd bet that I agree with Friedman on more than you do.

Really?

Do you agree with this:

"A society that puts equality ahead of freedom will end up with neither."

 

[Jack V Savage]

Really?

Do you agree with this:

"A society that puts equality ahead of freedom will end up with neither."

I think it's a meaningless statement, actually. Not something one agrees with or disagrees with. Those are complementary values.

If you read through Friedman's writings, you'll see that he was a lot more conventional than I think people like you (who know him mostly as a caricature or through his role as a propagandist) realize. Very much not an Austrian quack, though he was wrong about a few important things.