I think we need more discussion (in a separate thread) on Trump's tax plan, by those who understand economics.
Samseau? scorpion? Who are the econ guys in here?
I have the news on in the background and the clucking hens are saying that Trump's tax plan will increase taxes on those making $50,000 a year by $300 per month, and that it will give the rich a huge tax break, and give us the largest deficit in history.
They then also went on to say that Cruz wants to introduce a flat tax, and inferred that he's the only one with this idea, even though Trump's plan is a flat tax.
Now, I know from reading on this thread that Trump's flat tax will not benefit the rich, nor will it create such a huge deficit, because he will be closing so many deductions and legal loopholes that the rich/elite will end up paying more taxes because of it. Or at least that's how I understand it.
I think if a few of you guys who really understand economics and his tax plan post here in the Trump policy thread (/thread-54477.html) like Handsome Creepy Eel did it would go a long way in educating those of us who have not studied much economics.
I know this will be one of the main topics of discussion when I see my homo Bernie Sanders friends, so I'd like to understand the topic better.
(03-16-2016 03:14 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote: An effective taxation policy is where Donald Trump excels and will make a big difference. In order to be effective, such a policy must be done in a smart way - and that automatically excludes atrocities like a 90% tax on anyone making over $200k or a 50% corporate tax.
Let's examine one of the most famous tax evaders: Apple. Apple might be the most famous and valuable corporation we have ever known, but it has paid ZERO taxes for years now. To pay that zero, Apple engages in many shenanigans and wastes a ton of its money to cycle it around the globe. It has subsidiaries in Ireland, Asia, Caribbean islands and practically everywhere you can imagine. This allows it to, using various tax loopholes, present all of its income as "foreign" and not subject to taxation. http://www.forbes.com/sites/leesheppard/...0df226d6f7
But why does Apple go through all those shenanigans? Well, obviously because the corporate tax rate of 35% is highly discouraging and makes if profitable. Even if you spend 30% to save the remaining 5%, you've still profited enormously.
Now imagine if the following exchange happened:
President Donald Trump: "Hey guys, come here and pay 15%, and you can stop engaging in those stupid shenanigans and wasting your money while hiding it."
Apple: "That's an attractive offer, but we need to think about it.
President Donald Trump: "By the way, if you refuse, we're going to slap your products with a 40% import tariff."
Apple: "..."
Apple: "We accept."
Result: Apples starts paying $8 billion/year in taxes instead of the 0 that it's paying now. Then apply the same method to companies like Ford, Nabisco, Google, Boeing... the potential is enormous.
Right now, the Cost/Benefit ratio of taxation is all screwed up. Paying taxes is very expensive and unrewarding. Avoiding taxes is very cheap and easy. If we upend it - if the prospect of paying taxes becomes easy/rewarding, and the prospect of not paying taxes becomes a terrible bet with severe consequences - you can bet that corporations will suddenly rediscover their zeal for being legal and obedient taxpayers.
Turn the motivation around and watch the tax receipts soar.
And this is not to even mention the increased employment and investment from companies suddenly having the motivation to operate plainly in the USA instead of God-knows-where in order to hide their manufacturing and R&D hubs and claim their income is "foreign". Major economic stimulus.
Other than this, Trump also has huge potential to reduce the outrageous federal expenditure that is spent on ridiculous stuff pushed by lobbyists. The prime example here is the famous F-35 lightning, whose cost has "unexplainably" climbed close to $2 trillion (whereas Russia's equivalent program will cost a few hundred million). Imagine how much you can save on healthcare, energy, farming subsidies and all other stuff if they are no longer controlled by lobbyists. The possibilities are simple staggering.
All we need is the will to try and Donald Trump, a candidate who doesn't accept campaign contributions from corporations and is not beholden to them.
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2016 10:31 AM by RioNomad.)
Sorry if already posted, but TRUMP adds 3 swaggy delegates in Alaska after Rubio drops out. Lots of cuckservatives are butthurt about this since Cruz won the state handily but Trump now gets as many total delegates from AK (14) as does Lyin Ted.
(03-18-2016 09:54 AM)Patriarch Wrote: Requiem you didn't like the latest one? I thought it was great, non-stop ripping on Yeb and Rubot. They will live on in our memories.
The funny thing about Volume 1 and 2 especially was the sheer number of people talking smack and then having to quit. Volume 3 was good also but it only had 3 people dropping out (naturally) and didn't seem as good to me personally as I've already seen all the scenes used numerous times in various other videos. I still like it though, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it.
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2016 10:38 AM by Requiem.)
03-18-2016 10:37 AM
The following 1 user Likes Requiem's post:1 user Likes Requiem's post SamuelBRoberts
(03-18-2016 06:10 AM)Aristotle Wrote: Now that it's almost certain that Trump will be the candidate who goes against Hillary Clinton in the General Election, I'm going to preemptively start a thread on Trump Vs Hillary.
This thread will be somewhat of a combination of both the Donald Trump and Hillary threads. It's focus will be about comments they make about each other, and eventually focus on the debate highlights that occur leading up to the general election.
Any comments, memes, videos, attack ads, etc related to either The Donald hitting Hilary or vice versa are welcome here. I hope this thread grows and rivals the #HIGHENERGY of the Donald Trump thread, and provides all of us with much laughter, as well as ammunition to persuade Hillary supporters and undecided voters in the upcoming general election.
Without further ado:
Why did Hillary Clinton bark?
Because Wall Street told her to, and now she gets a treat
(03-18-2016 08:02 AM)BassPlayaYo Wrote: The Hillary Strikes Back:
Hillary's laugh in this vid is so forced she comes off like a mentally ill person or bad actor playing an evil scientist in a B movie.
Despite how bad the deck is stacked against Trump (media-wise, gov't dependency of most voters, big money being thrown against him), this is a big hint as to how he can still beat her. She has no charisma. None.
I find it hard to believe that the Democrats could have found anyone less likeable with less social/human skills to run.
Just a human enjoying his "Apex-Predator Privilege" atop the food chain.
The basic message is: Trump would cut taxes for everyone except people relying on loopholes and exemptions and he'll cut corporate taxes. The cuts will be paid for by closing loopholes. Without actually knowing what loopholes he intends to close and how he intends to enforce those changes and ensure the exploiters pay up, it's hard to evaluate his plan in full.
100% agreed, completely horseshit ad from Hillary. I'm not even saying this as a fanboy.
Unless her aim was to remind me of her barking like a dog during her own attack ad she shouldn't have sampled Trump's ad. Free advertising bonus. Trump- 1 Hillary- 0.
03-18-2016 11:38 AM
Roosh
Innovative Casanova
Posts: 17,602
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 366
(03-18-2016 11:38 AM)Hades Wrote: On phone, can't quote.
100% agreed, completely horseshit ad from Hillary. I'm not even saying this as a fanboy.
Unless her aim was to remind me of her barking like a dog during her own attack ad she shouldn't have sampled Trump's ad. Free advertising bonus. Trump- 1 Hillary- 0.
Agreed, complete fail. It's unoriginal, reactive, and only Hillary's most unlikable and out-of-touch feminist hag supporters are likely to find it funny.
03-18-2016 11:54 AM
Wreckingball
Alpha Male
Posts: 1,101
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 5
The basic message is: Trump would cut taxes for everyone except people relying on loopholes and exemptions and he'll cut corporate taxes. The cuts will be paid for by closing loopholes. Without actually knowing what loopholes he intends to close and how he intends to enforce those changes and ensure the exploiters pay up, it's hard to evaluate his plan in full.
i'm pretty sure he uses/used or know which loopholes to use to pay less tax.
03-18-2016 12:00 PM
Blaster
True Player
Posts: 1,610
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 22
The basic message is: Trump would cut taxes for everyone except people relying on loopholes and exemptions and he'll cut corporate taxes. The cuts will be paid for by closing loopholes. Without actually knowing what loopholes he intends to close and how he intends to enforce those changes and ensure the exploiters pay up, it's hard to evaluate his plan in full.
i'm pretty sure he uses/used or know which loopholes to use to pay less tax.
Sure, I'm just saying we can't reasonably have an in-depth discussion about possible consequences for Trump's tax plan without knowing what those plans actually are.
03-18-2016 12:19 PM
Blaster
True Player
Posts: 1,610
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 22
(03-18-2016 09:54 AM)Patriarch Wrote: Requiem you didn't like the latest one? I thought it was great, non-stop ripping on Yeb and Rubot. They will live on in our memories.
The funny thing about Volume 1 and 2 especially was the sheer number of people talking smack and then having to quit. Volume 3 was good also but it only had 3 people dropping out (naturally) and didn't seem as good to me personally as I've already seen all the scenes used numerous times in various other videos. I still like it though, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it.
The oblivious arrogance of those guys in the first two videos is striking.
03-18-2016 12:22 PM
The following 1 user Likes Blaster's post:1 user Likes Blaster's post Requiem
Emancipator
True Player
Posts: 1,842
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 21
Was Donald's ad where he shows Hillary barking the ultimate agree & amplify response to the Trump is sexist ad in which he is accused of calling women dogs? I think so.
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2016 12:29 PM by Enoch.)
We choose the nominee, not the voters: Senior GOP official
The backlash is strong in the comment section. 10K+ votes all threatening to leave the Republican party if they deny Trump over bogus rules. Obviously those comments are representative of the voter base writ large, I wonder how suicidal Republicans are feeling this year?
(03-18-2016 08:02 AM)BassPlayaYo Wrote: The Hillary Strikes Back:
Hillary's laugh in this vid is so forced she comes off like a mentally ill person or bad actor playing an evil scientist in a B movie.
Despite how bad the deck is stacked against Trump (media-wise, gov't dependency of most voters, big money being thrown against him), this is a big hint as to how he can still beat her. She has no charisma. None.
I find it hard to believe that the Democrats could have found anyone less likeable with less social/human skills to run.
Not only that.
One of the key concepts I talked about in Stumped was domination of space. Trump is winning in large part because he dominates so much media space. He sets the political Go board.
What do I see in that ad? Immediately I see that Hillary is operating in Trump's territory. Not her own. She's buying into Trump's frame. Trump is the proactive one and she's being reactive.
It's already starting.
In Stumped I explored every single presidential election in history. By every conceivable metric that I noticed in those who won, Trump has the advantage over Hillary. I think this is going to be a landslide assuming normal rules are in play (no voter fraud or contested conventions, etc.) and Trump can come across as less of a fearful presence.
At a social today I spoke with a writer for the Washington Post. She works three jobs and all are very shaky. Constantly thinking about privilege and '-ism's. 100% WNB.
As soon as she started accusing people of sexism and talking about white privilege I figured she was not a closet Trump supporter.
Interestingly, I slipped in some non-PC things which should have caused an outrage about five months ago. It was passed over.
The ice is thawing, gentlemen.
If you're going to try, go all the way. There is no other feeling like that. You will be alone with the gods, and the nights will flame with fire. You will ride life straight to perfect laughter. It's the only good fight there is.
Great video showing how much of hypocritical shithead Bernie is. However, I noticed a comment on YouTube that claimed that Bernie said recently something along the lines of that "there are no poor white people/they don't know what it's like to be poor."
I was thinking: No fucking way he is that stupid to say that. But he did during the March 6th debate.
Quote:During the Democratic debate in economically distressed and racially diverse Flint, Mich., CNN’s Don Lemon asked both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders the same question:
"In a speech about policing," Lemon said, "the FBI director, James Comey, borrowed a phrase saying, ‘Everyone is a little bit racist.’ What racial blind spot do you have?"
When it was Sanders’ turn to answer, he began by talking about several specific examples of racial discrimination. He [Bernie] then drew a contrast with what whites experience.
"When you’re white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto. You don’t know what it’s like to be poor. You don’t know what it’s like to be hassled when you walk down the street or you get dragged out of a car," Sanders said.
Poltifact did a detailed breakdown of his statement and they do a good job clearly showing that plenty of whites live at or very near poverty levels. You can read about it here:
Anyhow, I've been saying for a long while that the democrats are anti-white and if anyone need overwhelming clear proof to shut up libtards (especially white libtards) and maybe convert them to get on the Trump train, just show them that link. Bernie's comments are incredibly offensive, racist, and enraging on a visceral level to the vast majority of white people who have or know another white person who has experienced the ramifications of being poor.
Can you imagine the outrage if Trump said that black people don't know what it's like to be poor? Even I don't think he could survive such a retarded statement.
I'm not religious but I pray that Hillary gets caught making a statement like the aforementioned between now and election day. The political fallout would be massive. In the meantime, find people who admit to liking Bernie (a lot of libtards do) and show them that link and give them a harsh reality check on what the democrat party is really all about.
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2016 02:31 PM by The Black Knight.)
I am convinced that most Bernie supporters have negative net worths and/or have never owned anything more valuable than an iphone. (or macbook, if white)
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2016 02:42 PM by Enoch.)
(03-18-2016 02:42 PM)Enoch Wrote: I am convinced that most Bernie supporters have negative net worths and/or have never owned anything more valuable than an iphone. (or macbook, if white)
You'd be surprised. I live in an upscale town and I see Bernie yard signs all over. The other day I saw a decent-looking guy in his 40s with a Bernie tshirt.
Don't kid yourself thinking it's only "loser" millenials supporting him.
03-18-2016 02:53 PM
The following 2 users Like TigerMandingo's post:2 users Like TigerMandingo's post estraudi, RaccoonFace
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
The following 6 users Like RioNomad's post:
![[Image: LAdQ8zI.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/LAdQ8zI.jpg)
![[Image: vTddpvX.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/vTddpvX.jpg)
![[Image: darker-pictures-of-Pied-Piper-of-Hamelin.jpg]](http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/darker-pictures-of-Pied-Piper-of-Hamelin.jpg)
