There has to be a term for people who consistently believe lies over and over even after the liar has proven themselves to be in it for themselves.
It makes sense if you lack the information necessary to accurately critique it. Cutting taxes on big businesses looks like corruption if you are not financially literate. But then if you think it through, like "oh wait, inflation is technically a tax on corporations and they just raise prices, that's why a bag of cheetos that used to cost $1 now costs $1.78 and has less weight. Meaning corporate taxes is really just a poor tax" then it makes sense.
Democracy is the scam that even a majority of participants can properly educate themselves when it is, and always has been, a small minority who care. It's just a method for the rich to fool the masses into voting against their interests.
And by the way it's not a bad thing that people are this way. You don't want everyone to become financial professionals or waste their time studying politics and history. That would be a disaster. You WANT people who obsessively specialize in, idk, chiseling goofy shit into walls or engraving stuff. You just don't want them voting on finance or whatever.
Cutting taxes on big businesses looks like corruption if you are not financially literate.
It also looks like corruption when you are financially literate.
Super-jew Milton Friedman advanced the concept of corporate taxation being bad, with his whole "The corporation can no more pay tax than the floor can", but he neglected to mention that his proposals of exempting corporations from taxation came at the cost of making individual taxpayers pay even more.
For some reason, simply abolishing income tax altogether, or at least abolishing it on individuals, never seems to be an option.
But, as Friedman himself (conversableeconomist.blogspot.com)lamented, he had a rich history of coming up with good ideas that had economy-wrecking, and even nation-destroying, consequences because he did not think them through before advocating and implementing them.
He's right, corporations can't pay taxes. It comes from share holders, customers or employees. Where else could it possibly come from?
This method of taxation has been used to hide taxes away where nobody can see them. When you buy a soda you are paying the taxes on the tin, the gasoline, the sugar, whatever else. That is an invisible tax because it doesn't show up on the receipt and it's processed on the back end.
A direct tax is preferable if for no other reason that it makes people choke on their spit and take to the streets.
That being said, it isn't as simple as "oh so no corporate tax is Jewish and having corporate tax isn't". Having no corporate tax can be favorable for one business for aggressive expansion, and after this expansion high taxes would be favorable to squash competitors and have them dancing on razor thin margins.
$15 minimum wage would've been bad for Amazon early on, but now they are lobbying for $15 minimum wage to crush their competitors. Not the best example since minimum wage is cancerous no matter what, I'm just saying things can be good and bad depending on what cycle certain groups are in and what their goals are.
He's right, corporations can't pay taxes. It comes from share holders, customers or employees. Where else could it possibly come from?
Taxpayers who have absolutely nothing to do with the business, and whose taxation comes from activities wholly separate from the business. For example, my former local metropolis granted property tax exemptions to big business to get it to relocate there, but then also realized that their budget required the tax dollars that these companies should have been paying, and so tax hikes and new taxes were imposed on small businesses and private citizens.
Even if you never even use the services of the Fortune 500 tier companies in that city, if you live in that city then you are paying their freight.
A direct tax is preferable if for no other reason that it makes people choke on their spit and take to the streets.
It is, but Judaism has spent over a century trying to obscure just what a direct tax is, and effectively legislating it out of existence. A stopgap has been for businesses to present indirect tax penalties to the customer (eg: listing booze taxes and sales taxes on receipts), but this is a passive-aggressive resistance that is not practiced everywhere, and is rarely practiced by lefties IME.
Imagine if California, New York, and (((Florida))) were on the hook to pay the bulk of every piece of liberal legislation proposed federally.
On corporate taxation, I'd rather see a more Anglo system of simply not having any income tax at all. To get the Bernie/Biden Bros on board, I'd be willing to retain a tax on corporate income. From what I can find, the GOP used a similar strategy to get federal income tax passed in the USA, framing it as a penalty for the perks of incorporating.
(post is archived)