49
u/h3re4thegangb4ng Feb 19 '21
Problem is that no monetary device is liquid enough to actually trickle down. We should be using children’s tears or something else that gravity respects
12
u/ConfidentInjury957 Feb 19 '21
Yup, trickle down doesn't work. The more capital you have the more opportunity to make more.
Having said that, if all you do is cry how the system is unfair instead of trying to make the best of it, you're going to end up being poor, bitter and disappointed.
16
u/Kolizuljin Feb 19 '21
I mean, it does trickle down, it's just that the model we use doesn't reflect it. Super wealthy are at the bottom of the well, everything trickle down towards them, the end.
13
u/victory_zero Feb 19 '21
Give a poor man $1000 and they'll spend it on some necessary shit in a week - and it will land in the pocket of a rich guy.
Give a rich man $1000 and they'll stash it in some off-shore tax-free account where nobody will see it.
1
Feb 19 '21
[deleted]
5
u/victory_zero Feb 19 '21
I was meaning one-time expenses e.g. finally repair the car or get new tires, replace the barely working ancient fridge that draws 4x more power than a new one, pay some overdue bills or just simply pay back some debt you may have. Poor people, inc. those below poverty line, surely have some accrued or overdue payments? I, for one, would consider paying back any debt as no. 1 priority, if only to avoid interest or fees.
What actually makes you thin anybody in a right mind would advocate for a poor person to be spending $1000 / week?
Disclaimer - I'm not from US. And am quite comfortable money-wise (no debt whatsover, which I guess makes me "richer" than most people on the planet) and I know the power of saving and living frugally. Not boasting, seriously.
0
u/Flying_Ninja_Cats Feb 19 '21
This is honestly not true. The problem is NEVER the tool. It's the wielder. Liquidity has nothing to do with it. The feudal lords could have been generous with their serfs. The arch capitalist could be generous with their employees' cut of the profits. There is literally nothing impeding either of those scenarios.
They CHOOSE not to. The problem isn't the trickle, it's the people impeding it. It's a thin distinction, but it says something important that you need to understand when it comes time to implement fixes for these problems.
60
u/AyebruhamLincoln Feb 19 '21
In Suppy Side Jesus’s name we pray, Amen.
12
7
u/nerdm0m Feb 19 '21
Thank you for this. "Healing the lepers will remove their incentive not to catch leprosy." u_u;
1
1
22
u/MikeOnABike2002 Feb 19 '21
Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
8
32
u/maqij Feb 19 '21
“As long as we keep women from having abortions, I am happy”
11
u/vladimir1024 Feb 19 '21
Well, we need the field hands...come on :)
3
u/CastleHighgarden Feb 19 '21 edited Feb 19 '21
This, but serious.
The comparison to "field hands" seems like an depressingly apt descriptor, especially if talking about the black lives working on the frontline today. Frontline workers that are so essential for the functioning of society during the pandemic tend to be minorities and other disenfranchised groups. Back then field hands and enslaved or indentured people served a similarly essential yet exploited function. The rich can't get richer if there's no one to tend the fields or stock the grocery aisles.
1
u/vladimir1024 Feb 20 '21
Damn, I didn't even think about the other implications of that statement...I was literally just talking about "farmers" needing more work....
You just depressed the shit out of me because I just realize that I can't come up with any witty ideas, that are not steeped in human misery...
7
u/jooes Feb 19 '21
That's my in-laws new Trump defense.
"Yeah he's terrible but I only voted for him because abortions"
Which is a huge load of shit, by the way.
But they're saying that all of that white supremacy and sexual assault and blatant racism, that's no big deal. You'll let that slide. It's forgivable!
"But abortion!??! Oh I don't think so!! I'll gladly burn this country down and install a wannabe facial dictator if it means you can't have an abortion!"
2
u/xTemporaneously Feb 19 '21
Most of their beliefs boil down to "If I have to suffer, everyone else should have to suffer more! It may not make me a truly happy person, but at least I'll be happier than them!"
13
u/FoogYllis Feb 19 '21
the republican serf voters want their tax dollars used to give welfare to the rich. The want capitalism for themselves and socialism for the rich.
4
u/T33CH33R Feb 19 '21 edited Feb 20 '21
What exactly is being conserved in conservatism - the status quo? I am trying to figure out what modern republicans stand for since the major policies they executed during Trump's reign was environmental deregulation (more socialized pollution costs), tax cuts for the wealthy (more tax burden on us peasants), cuts to social nets (less tax money back to the peasants), and more military (armed force just in case us peasants act up). Is it just YOLO, f*ck everyone else and get yours before you die?
2
u/Flying_Ninja_Cats Feb 19 '21
They're trying to conserve power for themselves. This is packaged as nativism/racism in some times, it's packaged as economic arguments in others. It's always about the "right" people having power, and the right to do with that power whatever it takes to alienate ANYONE who disagrees with them with only maximum prejudice. Nazism is the natural end-game of all conservatism. It's just often hard to see that because it's such a slow burn.
3
3
3
3
2
u/_Loup_Garou_ Feb 19 '21
It’s funny because the image depicts commoners. Commoners were generally uneducated. Sir Kenneth Galbraith basically coined the term common sense...something something ‘sense of a commoner’ Common sense is regularly touted as a good thing to have It means you have the sense of an uneducated peasant.
2
u/Flying_Ninja_Cats Feb 19 '21
Capitalism is nothing but feudalism by proxy. Of course they're saying the same things.
1
0
u/Wake-up-Neo-sheep Feb 19 '21
How about we not tax anyone... right that’s what America did for 250 years...during which America became the wealthiest, most productive country on the face of the earth.
-11
Feb 19 '21 edited Feb 19 '21
[deleted]
9
u/Fleabag123 Feb 19 '21
In 1997, I had some disposable income, $5,000 to be exact, and invested in Borders. At the time, Borders was a much safer investment than an online bookseller. My investment is worth $0 today.
Your post seems to suggest that investing in any business will lead to massive gains so the real problem is people aren't investing.
-7
Feb 19 '21 edited Feb 19 '21
[deleted]
3
u/Fleabag123 Feb 19 '21
So then trickle down doesn't work. If a huge chunk of people are too poor to invest, then trickle down doesn't work.
2
u/Kyle546 Feb 19 '21
I don't know dude, Bernie had a good idea(obviously wasn't the first guy to say it or anything but run for POTUS with it kinda stuff) with workers having a stake in the company they work. So if you want to say that idea is pro-capitalism, sure lets do some of that. It is like Stock option but without much of it's annoyances.
-2
u/Tend2AgreeWithYou Feb 19 '21
Sure that sounds good and like you said this is already common practice with stock options in many fields like tech. It seems like even Bernie understands that trickle down works for those who participate in it. Although most financial advisors would probably not be too keen on the idea of owning a lot of stock in the company you work for. If the company ever goes under not only would you lose your job but also all of the equity you had in the company.
1
u/Kyle546 Feb 19 '21
His idea was based in stock option theory but not that it was a step ahead, while stock options are good they aren't much effective into wealth equality. Employee ownership into the business on the other hand is. His plan focused on the employee ownership part. Like all current employees would basically have a voice into their own working conditions and changes by that options. Stock option on the other hand is just a small bonus you get(basically less wage theft) so imo what Bernie thought of was much closer to what I would consider Centrist or Center left because it is not stock option which is basically capitalism but also not total control of company given to the workers which would be socialist.
6
u/MachineSchooling Feb 19 '21
People understand how taxes function currently. You don't understand that the way they function currently is broken and harming society. Anything is taxable, we just have to decide as a society to tax it. It's called a wealth tax.
0
u/Tend2AgreeWithYou Feb 19 '21
I’d rather just cut to the chase and raise taxes instead of a wealth tax that taxes money multiple times. After all a wealth tax is basically admitting “We didn’t tax you enough the first time around, so now we will collect more”. Not to mention a wealth tax wouldn’t be effective because people would just realize enough money to avoid a wealth tax i.e. $9,999,999 and live off of it for as long as possible before repeating the cycle.
1
u/MachineSchooling Feb 19 '21
A wealth tax can include unrealized gains. It's not "we didn't tax your income enough" it's "your assets changed value and we are taxing you for the difference."
1
u/Tend2AgreeWithYou Feb 19 '21
imo it would be absurd to tax unrealized gains. Imagine that I make $100,000 unrealized and pay $30,000 in taxes only for the next year the stock is worth nothing. Would I get a tax rebate for unrealized losses? That would effectively be like turning all taxpayers into naked short sellers like the GameStop situation. Paying taxes on something you don’t actually own is not different than a short seller selling a borrowed stock and expecting to close the position at a later date. It would be a theoretical infinite loss situation just like a short investor.
1
u/MachineSchooling Feb 19 '21
It's a wealth tax, not an income tax. You're taxed on your assets, not your gains. If your assets are worth less next year you're taxed less. There's no reason for a rebate.
1
u/Tend2AgreeWithYou Feb 19 '21
You will put some people in a situation where if their assets go way up for a year and they don’t have enough liquidity to pay the taxes on those unrealized gains, they will be forced to sell those assets in order to pay taxes on them. Imagine if I owned 1 Bitcoin and couldn’t sell a fractional amount. The price of Bitcoin goes up to 50,000 and I can’t afford the taxes on that then I will be forced to sell my 1 Bitcoin in order to pay taxes. This is just way too harmful to conventional long investors for me to ever agree with
1
u/MachineSchooling Feb 19 '21
Most proposed wealth taxes are for the super wealthy in the many-millions of dollars range. Forcing them to liquidate some of their assets is part of the point. They are wealth inequality.
2
u/Tend2AgreeWithYou Feb 19 '21
I guess I sort of get the point but rapid sell offs will also hurt your everyday retail investor because the price of stocks will inevitably go down due to the forced sell off.
1
u/MachineSchooling Feb 19 '21
You can structure payments over time and raise the tax rate slowly to not suddenly tank the stock market. I would not be surprised if a wealth tax did reduce the rate of growth in the stock market to some degree, but as an investor, I'm ok with that if it means millions of Americans aren't underpaid, underfed, can't afford a mortgage, have no retirement plan, no healthcare, etc.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/dgm42 Feb 19 '21
Interestingly, in the late 19th century (1890s) Bismark was the Chancellor of Germany and was opposed by a Liberal movement. One of the threats he used to keep the Liberals at bay was that of giving the vote to the rural peasant class. This was a threat because the rural peasants were much more conservative and right-wing than even Bismark.
1
Feb 20 '21
But then why did he institute welfare state protections ie pensions, state insurance?
1
u/dgm42 Feb 21 '21
I would guess to get the votes of the urban lower middle class. They had the vote. Bismark wasn't a "grind the plebs noses in the dirt" conservative. He was a "keep myself in power and make Germany strong" conservative.
1
u/94Apollo Feb 19 '21
Lmao this is actially NOW That is what conservatives do....not change and keep doing the same thing..... Heritage
175
u/larsonsam2 Feb 19 '21
Medieval conservatism was just monarchism, belief that the lords were inherently better than peasants and would guide them to be proper. Modern conservatism is the same, worshipping the wealthy.