Has anyone fact-checked Hillary's tax plan?

The guys she paid to tell her her plan was good told her her plan was good.

Raising taxes takes money out of the economy and reduces consumption thereby lessening demand so logically it would follow that less demand would lead to lower employment levels.

well, i don't have her numbers and I'm not an economist. However, Trumps proposal seems, like Hillary stated, to be a continuance on economic politics that have create a massive gap in society, further fueling a greed based system. Thinking that successful, greedy corporations will benefit those they exploit to make their profits is downward naive and unrealistic. NPR seems to agree with Hillary.

特朗普彻底摧毁了她。

他谈到真正的计划和政策,但克林顿只能够谈论特朗普。

他整个时刻推她至绳索。她输当时,所能做的就是傲慢傻笑。这对于她和民主党,太难堪。

几乎所有的民意调查除了LOL(((CNN)))同意。

特朗普称霸

There is literally nothing wrong with economical gaps. Its a big driving factor in all societies.

There will be new jobs like relocating refugees and prepping African bulls to fuck your gf or wife. Also more abortion clinics and tolerance camps need camp counselors.

delet this

Not at all. Trump's plan is to lower corporate tax rates in the US first and foremost, then cut income taxes for everyone. The US has a 35% corporate income tax, plus another 15% tax on any international earnings repatriated into the country. This is why multinational US companies don't ever bring back profits and reinvest them in the US. They just sit in foreign banks or are reinvested to expand foreign divisions.

Anyone making less than $20K would see their federal income tax removed entirely. Taxes would go down for everyone, letting everyone spend more money on things they want or paying off debt, which corporations wouldn't be taxed so heavily on.

Look at it this way: Liberals say the minimum wage should be raised so that everyone has more money to spend to fuel the economy. Republicans say everyone should pay less money to the government and save more by lowering taxes. What Hillary wants to do is raise taxes and increase spending. Trump's plan is to lower taxes and maintain or decrease spending.

They don't create jobs. She would be a good socialist and create meaningless jobs so that it looks good on the balance sheet.

I must I partly disagree. While certain gaps are expected, the extend is frightening and should be buffered, if not eradicated. Then again, I have a socialistic view.

One thing that got me was just how is she going to add 10 million new jobs? Lester didn't ask her specifically how she'd make these jobs, and she never told us.

Statistically, yes, but that doesn't make them moral.

Because that copypasta is just english words typed in russian script. it's not translated.

Trumps plan will largely impact the top 1% earners, the further down you look the less impact it will have. Trump and his rich buddies have sent jobs out of america time and time again, not only because of corporate ta, but also because of wage costs. Unless you raise import taxes to fill that margin corporations will still have no reason to create jobs at home. If you raise import taxes most Americans wont be able to afford anything, have gained nothing and the USA stands isolated from the world markets

Some waps are expected, ofcourse, but when they become too big you are risking fucking up everything.

>raise taxes on the rich
>rich still use loopholes to hide income
>$0 revenue obtained

Trump's going to raise duties, and no, Americans won't suddenly be unable to buy shit because now they can actually have a competitive national market instead of one that's being bled dry by foreign industry.

presidential debates are just a contest to see who can lie more convincingly

what comes up to mind is using the money generated by higher taxes for the rich, the figure was about 5 million/year income, to renew your infra structure (roads, bridges, etc,) and subsidize businesses who just started their existence.

>Infrastructure
Temporary jobs that have no longevity and don't lead to productivity increases. Most of those roads and things are falling into disrepair because they aren't used as much as they were in the 50s. The pursuit of efficiency means that more investment goes into shipping products via ship and rail, and those are maintained by large, wealthy corporations.

>Subsidize businesses
Has never happened in US history, and there's no reason to assume that would lead to more jobs instead of just investments in robotics or foreign call centers.

well, if i am a corporation and I have plants overseas where it is still cheaper to produce after the tax cuts compared the US, what incentive do i have to close that down and create a new plant in the US. I would simply lay off the duties onto the product and let the customers pay the difference.

No jobs created, nothing lost, as the tax cuts will make up for my income loss.

>Do tax increases on the wealthy generate more jobs?

Nope, as a business man I can tell you that we just find more creative ways to avoid paying those taxes. If it means moving HQ offshore, then that happens and the jobs follow.

Places like Hong Kong and Singapore are welcoming to business due to their low taxes. If Trump wins and lowers corporate tax in the US, even I'd consider setting up a branch over there to diversify my investments.

American politics is on another level compared to politics here.
Both Clinton and Trump can get away with saying insane shit, and you have no one actually checking to see if it is true.
Clinton has promised

>lower taxes
>free healthcare
>bigger military
>Free college
>help with paying of student loans
>Better infrastructure

It is like no one gives a shit.
I do however understand why american politics is so shit though. like, you have to convince 250 million something voters, who have nothing in common except religion, taxes and guns.

If Trump doesnt win this election, you need to pick up your guns and make a last stand.

When they tax the wealthy that means more money for the little government. More money to squander and fuck off with. People bitch about trickle down economics, rightfully so, but there's an obscene amount in irony in the fact that high taxes in of itself is trickle down economics.

why would anyone thing over taxing the wealthy , particularly wealthy business owners would help the economy , seriously why would you stay in a country that is trying to fuck you over for being successful

Trump fuckin flogged her ay

He said some real smart shit about money and Clinton just carried on about Trump.

He had her bent over the whole time. All she did was be a fuckin smug cunt while she was getting flogged. It was a complete fuck up for her and her politician mates.

Almost every cunt except for LOL (((ABC))) agree.

Trump stomped

>Greed
You're saying it as if it's a bad thing.
What is greed? The main driving force for every human being, and that creates the societies we see today.

Well, as I said before, I am not an economist, nor do I have extensive knowledge about American tax spending.
I would argue, that local businesses need good infrastructure to ship goods, and start ups need support to conquer the existing giants' monopolies.
It seems logical to me to boost those. Maintenance of infrastructure is a full time endeavor.

>Do tax increases on the wealthy generate more jobs?

They do if the jobs are all working for the government.

>Trump and his rich buddies
Who are they again? They all fucking hate him, the majority of donations from the rich are going to Shillary. What is this delusion?

Estate tax is a meme. It barely contributes anything, since almost nobody actually pays it.
The 10 million number is from Moody's Analytics, which is fairly liberal leaning (they loved Obama's stimulus for example).
Most credible economists don't actually like to put definite numbers on job plans for obvious reasons,
so you should be deeply suspicious of any economist that puts one candidates job plan millions over the other, especially one as pro Hillary as Moody.

>Do tax increases on the wealthy generate more jobs?

yes.. government jobs
private sector will lose jobs

So that would assume, since people pay taxes to the Government, that the jobs created would have to be Government Jobs. Or jobs that they hire contractors for, which does not help the average US citizen in the least.

Fill me in boys, is the voting going to be between hill and trump? Or there are other parties people could vote for? Are those two gonna share 100% of the votes? Or some other candidate could get a 10%?

I do think greed is bad. It's an appealing to one of the lowest motions in us all.

>If you raise import taxes most Americans wont be able to afford anything
which will create a market for that stuff to be made here, like it was before.

You see, Hill-Bill's gonna raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, so when everyone goes to work at McDonald's, they can use all that extra money to start a new business, perferably in drapes, and then have a whole bunch of leftover time for the family unit too.
Oh, but they can't get too rich, because then they're an evil wealthy person, and they all should be taxed. Except Apple. And Google. And all the companies with overseas factories & bank accounts.

Hillary's economy plan was literally build upon economic growth while she literally never said how she will get said economic growth.

it'll create more part time jobs

Right, because all the rich people that have donated to her campaign and the Clinton Foundation just love being taxed. I be-fucking-lieve it.

>npr seems to agree with hillary
No fuckin' shit? State sponsored radio seems to be siding with the left???? Get the fuck outta here!!!!!!!!!!!

I want to hear you scream from pain you faggot communist cuck

that's quite a probing question their user. Careful you don't accidentally shoot yourself in the head multiple times, ok?

News flash Heinrich, it doesn't matter if taxes get raised on the rich, there are corporate loopholes they'll find to keep their money in the long run, they've been doing this for years, and all it buttfucks is the middle & lower class.
You say greed, I say just work a little harder and start your own fresh & hip idea up to get rich. Nobody got where they are today without a little elbow grease.

They'll get 98%

>I do think greed is bad.
Then you're retarded.
As to be expected from a country which is in the process of committing suicide.

Estate tax doesn't impact the wealthy, it stops Bobby the builder from giving his kids a boost

>I'm seriously not an economics student, so can anyone on Cred Forums answer: Do tax increases on the wealthy generate more jobs?

No not the way the US does it. If you're gonna tax the wealthy and invest in a "bottom up" economy you need free education, investments in national technology programs, government subsidies for small businesses, etc etc etc. Simply raising the taxes to patch over the gaping wounds works no better than just lower taxing and hoping for "trickle down".

no, it will create 20 million jobs.

you probably ask how.. well, first you get the taxpayer money to make green energy then the green energy makes 10 million jobs

Let's hope Russians kill every single one of you

>Green Energy pays for itself goy, it will create millions of jobs, we just need 6 Trillion Billion Shekel in subventions for it to take off.
KYS

Economics is a broad field filled with retards who all claim their system works the best, like politics.

>Trumps plan will largely impact the top 1% earners

yes.
but people invest in china because the corporate tax is lower. see how that works? then they sell products to america in inflated prices.
goyim can't buy anything because all prices are inflated so they demand higher minimum wage.
viola

She doesn't have to explain herself to normies

Trump can't be serious with his tax plan, it just can't work for obvious reasons. Lowering the taxes for everyone and reducing the deficit? It's 100% impossible. 7% growth rate? Please.

Clinton and her tax plan could reduce the deficit, but of course it won't have an effect on jobs, that is also impossible.

>drapes
Underrated
Would squeegee and shit in hell with Killarys dad

This. If anybody knows about closing loopholes, it's Trump.

the idea behind that is

more jobs = more tax to collect
more jobs = less welfare
less welfare = less debt

>More jobs paid with tax money = more tax to collect

?

No, higher taxes means less going into profit, which in turn means less saved away for new research and innovations to make products & services better, and also less for possible expansions of staff or facilities/equipment, thusly much lower likelihood of any significant employment growth.

It is very widely accepted that money invested by governments is fundamentally not as efficient as private industry, because they have no profit incentive; no drive to come in under budget, ahead of time and with new innovations. Competition is the ultimate steroid for the economy, and Donalds plan of lowering taxes by 20 percentage points is far more viable, as it procludes all said above such as expansion and innovation, and lowers barriers to entry for small businesses, which then go on to employ more people, borrow money, produce goods, etc etc.

With hillarys plan, increasing the taxes on the rich just means the barely rich get pulled down, and only her pals with government friends and tax rebates can afford to monopolise industries. Its fucking devious.

government don't create jobs, they just incentivize people that have money to come and invest

They do create jobs, but usually at shit pay, and only short term, and mainly just trades such as labourers, construction, electricians etc. Couple years updating infrastructure then youre unemployed again

>USA corporate tax rate
35%
>Norway corporate tax rate
25%
>USA max tax rate
52.9% = 39.6% (federal)+ 13.3% (state)
>Norway max tax rate
46.9% (includes pension)

USA is a fucking commie shithole, but with none of the good parts

well yeah they create jobs mainly part of their military industry which is huge and is good to be part of.

but they also make alot of useless offices that do nothing. just like in any country.

Yeah, wish i could get me some of that tasty gubmint contract monies

It'll be the same as Obama care, they'll claim that people will be so helped out by the Healthcare plan, but employees will just cut their hours.

Pay a tax if I make over a certain amount of money? Guess I'll just downsize my company and keep my profits the same.

But there is no empirical evidence of tax policy (particularly tax cuts) having a big impact on the growth of large scale economies,

Trump utterly destroyed her.

He talked about real plans and policy and Clinton just talked about Trump.

He had her on the ropes the whole times. All she could do was arrogantly smirk while she was losing. It was embarrassing for her and for the Democratic party.

Almost all the polls except for LOL (((CNN))) agree.

Trump dominated.

Because it is a more laisez-faire free market application, and by rule the amount of state intervention and provision we have and its correlation to aggregate demand and spending the same doesnt quite apply. Hence why the Don mentioned regulations.

Someone did she said her plan would create 10 million I think top me said 3 million which desu is pretty shitty

Actually Obama care fucked the working mans health care so much and for such a small amount of people going lets you know it's bullshit

Corporations are greedy. However they invest where it's best to invest and the US frankly isn't a good place to invest. If you want a factory, you build it in Mexico. There needs to be some major changes so that companies stop building factories in fucking Mexico.

I'm glad Trump mentioned this tax evasion shit, today. Any rich person with half a fucking brain will hire accountants to hide/move their cash in ways to manipulate taxes. It's fucking not even a secret amongst the wealthy. Hell, any smart person would take advantage of this.

Or, be smart like Trump, get a shit ton of write-offs and don't pay tax.

If I was president I would tax the fuck out of companies who moved making it so it would actually be cheaper to be in America and the companies would flow back in

No. Tax increases on the wealthy will do jack shit except make them move themselves or their money out of the country.

The best tax-based way to increase jobs would be to lower corporate taxes, especially on medium and small sized businesses.

See, here's the thing, right

They each had two minutes to defend her tax plan

Trump used his to defend his tax plan

Clinton used her to attack Trump's tax plan

So I have no idea how Clinton's tax plan is meant to work

I should know, because informing me was what that two minutes was set aside for

but I do not know

It's been a while since undergrad economics, but all I got from this debate was

Hillary
>Tax the rich
>Give to middle class
>Middle class start companies
>More jobs

Unfortunately she skirted the issues of corporate expatriation and how the middle class would battle trade agreements

Trump
>Incentivize corporations to stay through taxes
>They build their investments here
>creates jobs

Unfortunately, this failed to address why this would create domestic investment and how the reduced taxes would fit in already bloated government programs.

That is an extremely bad idea. Thst just makes them pull out of the US completely and use a sub supplier instead to sell stuff. Greed trumps all in business.

it isn't just from a business perspective, unlike the past the service sector is international. These businesses know they can bring whatever workforce they need since they can pay equal or better wages, which in Mexico will give you 3 hectares of land, a large villa and 4 cars whereas in America it'd buy you a fraction of that. There's just no reason to operate in America for American companies.

Everybody wants Richie Rich to pay his fair share but if you tax him too much to pay for your socialist utopian society, which is currently showing very large cracks in its foundation, it will not cause him to expand his enterprise and create more jobs. He will take his money elsewhere, and run his American business lean. Then the next richest guy has to pay the heavy tax +1. Then the next. And so on.

The people you give the money to with Them Programs won't invent the next big thing that creates more jobs, they will eat and fuck. They will trade welfare money for cash. They will use it to get out of work, not because they are bad, but because that is the nature of mankind.

Trumps plan is to cut corporate taxes to encourage them to do business here and to expand. He also wants the lowest tax brackets to pay no income tax, that means poor people don't have to pay 10-15% tax every check. That will create real growth, in addition to the many other facets of his economic plan.

You do realize they can use what ever means to sell their products the company would be taxed hard so using a side company would be to expensive forcing them to either move back or deal with the high af taxes so they end up making way less money per year staying where they are

Malt liquor and KFC stocks will shoot through the roof with the new influx of welfare check money. Too bad what's left of our manufacturing sector will move to Mexico.

How does Hillary plan on raising 10 million jobs? I've yet to see any comprehensive, detailed plans. Small businesses are only useful to the communities they service, jobs with an actual impact are from factory and production lines all of which have moved to Mexico and elsewhere.

Raising taxes won't do anything, the net gain in tax revenue will be offset by the decline in productivity.

Business and economics major btw. Feel free to ask any questions.

Yes goyim, give more money to the goverment, they know how to spend it, it will create jobs just like all those car manufacturing jobs or clean energy ones, no goyim the rich won't find ways to move the money away from here hiding it in tax heavens or moving were cheaper labor is

Not OP, but this is exactly my issue when it comes to forming an opinion on who to vote for along economic lines. And I'm sure it's the same for 99% of people; both candidates spew their own plan, likely supported by economists with different opinions, and people just decide not by facts but by what sounds better to them.

Hillary and Trump's rhetoric both habe points that appeal to me but it's all really just good sounding noise. When Trump says "taxing the goods that companies are making overseas will incentivize them to move production back to the states" that seems intuitively correct to me but I'm sure it's more nuanced than that. When Hillary says "the wealthy need to pay their fair share," I think about the fact there's a class of billionaires who own this country and we'd definitely be served by limiting their financial power, but that there's no way in fucking Hell corporate controlled Shillary can be trusted to do that.

On those two notes, maybe Trump's plan accomplishes Hillary's rhetoric. If they can't sell imported foreign-made goods here that were created dirt cheap for an incredible profit, it's not like manufacturer's are just going to not sell products to an affluent country of 300 million people. They'd be forced to adapt and bring production back, which would create American jobs and give the American people more spending power again. So, in that sense, the wealthy job creators would be "paying their fair share" because they'd have to invest in the American economy.

>laisez-faire free market

Yes, but that is a more theoretical approach to the problem, it's difficult to understand if it would have any positive effect on the economy.

It comes down to if it's correct to assume that tax cuts has an impact on growth in the economy.

Curious though, what regulations are we talking about?

Can I point you to my post, particularly paragraph 3?

Is the decline of American manufacturing really do to the government allowing businesses to move overseas and doing nothing to stop them? What do you think should be done to incentivize businesses to bring production back to the states?

Also, checked for both of us.

>IT'S TIME FOR THE TOP 1% TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE
>I'M GONNA RAISE TAXES ON THE SUPER-RICH
>THE SAME SUPER-RICH THAT OUT-DONATE TO ME BY A 20:1 MARGIN
>THEY DEFINITELY GIVE ME MONEY SO THAT I CAN TAKE MORE OF THEIR MONEY LATER
>THAT SMART DECISION MAKING IS HOW THEY BECAME BILLIONAIRES
The hilarious thing is, you're trying to figure out if Hillary's plan to increase taxes on the top 1% would be a good thing when it's blatantly fucking obvious she isn't going to do it regardless. Money talks. She's backed by big business, and she'll work in their interest. Whatever plan she lays out is pointless, since if she wins, she's just gonna do whatever her puppetmasters say.

So, essentially, Trump's plan is directly good for the wealthy and the working poor because of the tax breaks, and good for the middle class because it will encourage job growth, and really only bad for gibsmedat recipients because the government will have less money fo' dem programs?

>I'm seriously not an economics student, so can anyone on Cred Forums answer: Do tax increases on the wealthy generate more jobs?

No, it causes them to flee. Tax breaks on the poor which are the bulk of the population leads to more spending since they have more money. Tax breaks on the rich leads to more investing since they can throw more around. Don't know about creating jobs but they do invest more.

I mean, a hollywood cock sucking millionaire wont' create jobs, since they're liberal and just like being rich for the fun of it. A business man millionaire possibly could create more jobs; it's a probability theory
.

tarrifs and lower corporate tax so we're not as expensive and they can make the most money here.

yes his plan is pretty antinigger

>implying taxing rich people would mean there are less innovations
>murricans think personal property equals research

>yes his plan is pretty antinigger
It's actually pro-nigger since it'll force them to get off their asses and actually make a living for themselves.
Might actually turn them into decent sub-humans for a change.

Yes which would force them out of complete nigger status into workanimals

America First, user.

Jill "qt 3.14" Stein and Gary "what is Aleppo" Johnson will get a small percentage of votes, then maybe 1 or 2 percent will go to meme candidates like vermin supreme and the rest (95%-98%) will go to Trump or Clinton.

Manufacturing jobs were already leaving before NAFTA though. Fact is we aren't an industrial company anymore

Country* fuck autofill

Did we have tariffs & low corporate taxes while they we're leaving

Bump because I dont think anyone fact checked Hillary's anything. She and the media frames everything like Donald is the one without facts meanwhile she lies about everything at every turn ie Bosnian sniper fire etc

We started to decline during the Reagan administration but not a steep drop until 2001.

Don't think it's a coincidence that manufacturing died right as the .com bubble became big. Really it started under the Bush administration but we supposedly had a very business-friendly environment under him.

economist kikefag here
with the exception of one case, that of an absolute depression - never

even without any economic theory, statistically speaking most wealthy people are more competent and capable of contributing more to economic growth than most poor people. if you create an artificial resource redistribution you'd best make damn sure you're not taking away the resources of an experienced middle upper class enterpreneur and giving it to a semi-literate nigger in Detroit

from an economic standpoint, if you're raising a sales tax on a producer's goods - which is only really applicable to men of means - then he will be forced to raise prices in an attempt to roll the loss of expenses to the consumer, who will in turn reduce demand

if you raise the income tax, starting new financial projects that create new jobs (like starting a new business or a factory) become less profitable. the result is that investors will be less inclined to pull their money off banks and expose it to risk, since it can just sit around and safely collect interest there. since american interest rates are already dirt low to combat this exact problem, rich people can just pull their assets of of the US and store them in foreign banking establishments which offer better rates, IE is bad for american banks. if done en masse it can even make some banks go bankrupt and start a new recession like the crisis of credit

lastly, if you raise the demostic business tax, then outsourcing existing labor becomes more profitable and thus corporations prefer moving their enterprises to other nations that demand less. as of now, even socialist Sweden has a corporate tax of 22%, compared to the BASE of 35% in the USA (which is subject to further modifications upwards depending on state)

in short
vote Trump if you want the USA to survive the full retirement of the baby boomers
if taxes go up NOW, your country's completely fucked

>Has anyone fact-checked Hillary's tax plan?
Has anyone fact checked the fact that her foundation is a scheme to avoid tax?

even if you can buy stuff online someone still has to manufacture it.

Hillary's plan doesn't answer if the rich and corporations start leaving the country. I guess the idea is to grow a new rich population, but why wouldn't they leave for greener pastures as well? And won't the conversion from old rich to newly rich (+corporations) cause a lot of jobs to be lost before they're rehired?

Trump's plan accounts for the inevitability of large corporations/rich to exist and incentivizes them to come back/stay here with good conditions for their profits- profits grown here from the American people that will have to be invested back here.

This man knows what he is talking about.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_antisemitism

Basically, Hilary's plan only works if even higher tariffs than those suggested by Trump are implemented, to make even the higher taxes here better for them than the tariffs if they weren't.

And that's only if these companies don't set up shell companies/puppet companies to sell their goods through to avoid the tariff, which would require yet more laws and restrictions.

And for every restriction, the chances and number of innocent companies playing by the rules getting hurt increases.

this

The cunt takes bribes from our enemies and people are more concerned with Donald Trump's fucking tax return.

I fail to understand what Trump's plan is.
Tax those who produce elsewhere more and make tax cuts for corporations? Big companies already pay comparatively less money just like rich people pay comparatively less taxes than anyone above the poverty line
And you guys want cuts for trust fund babies yet bitch and moan if niggers receive 2% more gibs
How do you guys think tax cuts come from? Public spending and incentives and infrastructure will decrease in value and only when you're sitting in a favela you'll start screaming that the wealthy fellas didnt let you into their golf club. Right now there's only a downward social mobility and you're even trying to accelerate it

Trump destroyed

He has a plan and Clinton talked about this policy only heard about playing actual card.

He is said to have on the rope. All you can do as she disappeared into a smile with pride. It was awkward for her and the Democratic Party.

Almost all survey lol (((CNN)) a) you agree.

Trump dominate

>The cunt takes bribes from our enemies and people are more concerned with Donald Trump's fucking tax return.
The conditioning of the masses is unreal.

Why the fuck does everyone say she won the debate?

She just talked shit without providing any fucking evidence.

> my team told me it's gonna work hurr hurr

So every single american should just believe her?

WTF seriously?

She acts like a fucking moron that wants to create an utopian world that would never work.

This woman has no idea or experience to improve the US economy.

Watch the debate, all she does is mock trump, tell people to believe her retarded claims and smile like a fucking robot.

>Do tax increases on the wealthy generate more jobs?

No, it just encourages the wealthy to move elsewhere or those outside of US to move there, which in turn fucks up the economy even more.

not move there*

Greed is good, it makes people think of new ideas to get an edge over the competition. Europe is failing because they dont understand that that if you have everyone everything, there's no real innovation.

Europe is still slugging through a recession, while the US has largely wormed it's way out. Greece & Spain are in danger of defaulting because they have a overly generous social system, that basically makes sure the government is there taking care of them from cradle to grave. This made them lazy.

The problem isn't just corporate tax- it's where those corporations are investing their money. Raising the corporate tax won't have any positive effect if those companies keep moving offshore.

Corporations need the carrot and the stick to move back here. Otherwise they'll be content where they are (aka not here). Lower taxes is the carrot and tariffs are the stick.

Tax increases on wealthy either decrease jobs and salary or increase prices. The less money job creators have, the less they can spend on their business.

have you fact checked trumps? you dumb faggoot user, it's not going to do anything for you. I highly doubt you or your senpai make 300k plus a year.

dumbass

Even Finland's (((((media))))) said she was pulling the numbers out of her ass.

and when your prices go up sufficently, a domestic producer can enter the market at a competitive price. thus you could either do what you said and lose market share, or move your shit back home, hire american workers, and maintain market share.

Niggers that actually get off their ass and work are not niggers, they're uncle toms. :^)

She plans on importing 10 million Muslims who'll collect welfare, that's a "job".

any photo of HC is on topic in /d/

Problem is that type of thinking is what got us into this mess. Neoliberalism and tax cuts is the Bush and Reagan shit that started cutting down the middle class. Supply-side economics don't work and never have.

And it's not just their own business- basic investing as well. Ensuring the top earners want to invest and earn even more here in America is good.

Republican rhetoric trickle down economics doesn't work because with out tariffs, the money instead trickles OUT of our economy instead of down. Of-fucking-course tax cuts to the super rich don't work if overseas labor is still cheaper.

Her whole spiel about the unnamed experts who said her plan is amazing and Trump's would destroy the economy seemed a bit suspect to me. Hillary's site doesn't include any sources either, which doesn't lead me to trust what she says.

Most big corporations already know how to evade taxes in the US and elsewhere, the only incentive would be for smaller companies who wouldn't have a chance otherwise but I doubt any of them actually gives a fuck about not-Silicon Valley and not-Wallstreet

>the extend is frightening and should be buffered, if not eradicated.

Why is the extent frightening? You think working at McDonald's and never controlling your urge to fuck should get you the same lifestyle as going to law school and marrying another professional or something?

And because of NAFTA it's dirt fucking cheap my man.

Any corporate profit you get back in the country will just flow into inflating stock and real-estate prices, relative to wages, where most money is actually made in the form of capital-gains. Tax levels are not why corporations set up physical production in other countries, it has more to do with the much lower overall standard living cost for employees. Tariffs will just raise the average living costs for Americans.
If you actually want to lower operational costs you have to lower corporate over-head expenses which would cut into the passive rentier income of the wealthy and their capital-gains. Average workers having more income to spend and lower rents (for individuals and companies) will do more than tariffs.

If a company is entirely based in America, evading taxes still means their money is here and still means their spending on workers and materials are for Americans rather than the Chinese.

>trump dominated
all i need to hear

Another thing is that jobs created or lost in whatever policies are usually mentioned don't mention the other half. Sure Hillary might create 10 million new jobs, but how many is she losing in the process? She wants to bring in immigrants, how many of those jobs will go to them instead of Americans?
Same vice versa, Trumps policy will lose 3.5million jobs, but how many are gained? Is she counting the ones for American started companies operating out of country?
All this job talk is pretty shit only because no one ever releases the full consensus of whatever Skype economist came up with the numbers they mention.

Trump addresses the 20 trillion dollar debt - Hillary danced around it.

Do you why?

Because she knows her policies would never be compatible with that debt while she knows that they will bait all the Bernie fags into voting for her.

Trump is just being honest: you can't have a social democracy with 20 trillion dollars in debt.

Of course he is. Socialists are don't like meritocracy. Actually having to be good at something scares them.

Higher taxes = less jobs because it is less cost efficient to do business in the US the higher the taxes go

> a domestic producer can enter the market at a competitive price.

Yea no, the expertise is fucking gone in the US, as is a lot of the production infrastructure.

Last month we needed an order for a specialty made metal part for a product. The boss said "all american" is a fantastic marketing tool, and told us to source as many parts from within the US as possible.

We couldn't find a single company that makes medium-run small metal castings to the tolerances we need. It was either extremely expensive CNC parts with more precision than we need, or stamped metal that doesn't have the strength.

We had to go to China for that job.

We'll need to train a whole new generation of metalworkers before things like that are viable in the US again. We have machinists, but not metalworkers.

Most of that debt is owned by Americans and is just transfer payments, the rest held by others like the Chinese gives America lavage over them because they have a vested interested in seeing it maintain its value so the Chinese cannot do something crazy like try to form their own alternative monetary system.

That's empirically wrong, the effect tax policy has on rising or lowering living expenses is what really matters. If you do something crazy like privatize all your infrastructure you'll really see business flee to China when the toll booths and rents start going up.

TRUTHS INCOMING:

>Increasing import taxes is beneficial for the USA
Truth.

>The above will bring back manufacturing
Maybe. Labor is still dirt cheap in some countries.

>Trickle down works
False. It's the biggest political meme of all time. Lower income taxes for the ultra rich will just make them spend more on their fucking cars than on creating jobs.

America at its best (mid 20th century) had high taxes for the rich.

Oh and don't forget that refinancing student debt just means paying MORE interest on the same amount of borrowed money over a longer period of time. What a fucking retard!

Inflating stock prices isn't necessarily a bad thing. It allows corporations to invest and grow their business and invest in new technology. All of that actually produces a wealthier society for everyone.

The only reason the same thing doesn't happen with real-estate is because of the NIMBY cucks and retarded zoning laws. As more money gets put into buying real estate the supply should come back to reach the demand but the people who have houses already get their city councils to restrict the development of new property so they can artificially limit the supply and turn their property into a gold mine so they can retire at the expense of everyone else.

It is anti-free market and NIMBY types should be hung in the street

How about a study from the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? This is the group that eviscerated Obama's 2009 budget for too much Obamacare spending.

crfb.org/papers/chartbook-promises-and-price-tags

hanged* ;)

I agree, but tariffs are only necessary when trading with countries that have harsh labor laws giving them an advantage, like China. Free trade should be encouraged between free countries, as it decreases prices for goods in both places.

this isn't even another language. it's just in Cyrillic. what are you doing cuck

Why bother to fact check any of her shit. She adopted all of Bernies plans as soon a a breeze started.

She will do whatever the highest bidder asks her to if shes elected.

You're borderline retarded.

Do you even read about these things?

Any estate tax only impacts people leaving behind > $5.5 million. Or, about .2% of the population.

The 65% rate you hear, that change could affect a max of 550 people in the USA - or given mortality rates and likely age of these peeps... maybe 12-15 people in the entire country.

The thing is big companies hardly do real investments any more since that has real risk; shareholders just want short term gains then they jump ship. Inflating stock values have little to no effect on real employment or economy, it just moves around spending power. And no one is ever going to do anything about NIMBY since everyone wants their property to perpetually increase in value and real-estate is the prime collateral loans are issued against today meaning hitting real-estate would cause a potential banking crises and crash the system.

Yeah no big companies are operating only in the US and I seriously doubt Trump could tax them so heavy that having manufactoring jobs in Mexico is less profitable than having them only in the US. We have yet to see what exactly his plans are because you could poke so many holes into this statement. Producing low quality products in the US is expensive, practising isolationalism when you can't produce all the goods you need

>False. It's the biggest political meme of all time. Lower income taxes for the ultra rich will just make them spend more on their fucking cars than on creating jobs.

People don't become ultra rich because they like cars or yachts. They become ultra rich because their absolute favorite thing in life is to do whatever they do that makes them rich. Having a little bit of extra fun money isn't going to change that. You think if you made Warren Buffet's car 10% faster or his yacht 10% bigger that he would stop investing?

>America at its best (mid 20th century) had high taxes for the rich.

America was at its best in the mid 20th century because we were the only developed nation untouched by WWII.

>America was at its best in the mid 20th century because we were the only developed nation untouched by WWII.
It wasn't just relative it had to do with the shit ton of massive large infrastructure projects going on, you had to do construction on stuff like the Interstate Highway System and programs like the Apollo program. When you spend money to build things you have overall growth, who would have thougth?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure-based_development

>America was at its best in the mid 20th century because we were the only developed nation untouched by WWII.
Sure but it's not like those high taxes didn't help the country, a lot (infrastructure for eg.). Things just slowed down a bit in the late 70s because of the oil crisis and suddenly Reagan, Thatcher in the UK and Milton Friedjew came in and fucked shit up because
>WE NEED MORE GROWTH OMG

Instead we got instability, the 2008 crisis and now stagnation.

>Do tax increases on the wealthy generate more jobs?
Yea, they like having their profit cut by taxes and when it happens they don't look at cutting costs (employees), never mind when the cost of an employee is doubled (raising minimum wage).

Companies will love it. They wont look at replacing basic jobs with automation. They will most likely double their workforce with these changes.

>Do tax increases on the wealthy generate more jobs?

No, they'll just move, or fine a legal way to not pay tax, because they can.

Taxes create a dead weight loss. Rich people will only hide their money harder. Only more and more money will leave because of this. If taxes are already causing money to leave the nation, then how will increasing taxes help this. She is just trying to ride the burn outs and thier 1% shit.

It'll add 10million jobs overseas.

I'm pretty sure Hillary wants to raise income taxes, not corporate tax rates. Correct me if I'm wrong though

>Do tax increases on the wealthy generate more jobs?

The wealthy just need to pay the taxes they already owe. Right now they've been refusing the pay $400 billion a year.

accounting-degree.org/accounting-tricks/

Implementing a multi-millionaire “Fair Share Surcharge.” Hillary will call for imposing a 4 percent “Fair Share Surcharge” on the 2 out of every 10,000 taxpayers making more than $5 million per year – who are the most likely to benefit from tax planning. This surcharge is a direct way to ensure that effective rates rise for taxpayers who are avoiding paying their fair share, and that the richest Americans pay an effective rate higher than middle-class families.
Shutting down the “private tax system” for the most fortunate, starting by immediately closing egregious loopholes. Hillary will call for strengthening the Buffett Rule by broadening the base of income subject to the rule. This means immediately closing egregious loopholes, like the Bermuda reinsurance loophole and the “Romney loophole” that let the most fortunate avoid paying their fair share. That also means closing the “step up in basis” loophole, which lets the highest-income Americans escape paying their fair share on assets passed to heirs.
Restoring fair taxation on multi-million dollar estates. Hillary is proposing to restore the Estate Tax to 2009 parameters, which would ensure some of the largest, multi-million dollar estates are not exempt from paying their fair share. And she would go beyond that for estates valued in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. She will also close complex loopholes, including methods that people can now use to make their estates appear to be worth less than they really are. The Estate Tax is a tax on the very largest estates that would only affect 4 out of every 1,000 estates after Clinton’s reforms. [2]
Ensuring millionaires can no longer pay a lower rate than their secretary. Hillary will reiterate her call for the “Buffett Rule,” which ensures that those making more than $1 million per year pay at least an effective tax rate of 30 percent.

>Restrict “inversions” and related transactions that let companies forego their U.S. identity to lower their taxes, through both Congressional and regulatory action. Clinton’s plan will call on Congress to prevent “inversions” and end transactions like the Pfizer-Allergan deal. This includes imposing a commonsense 50% threshold for foreign company shareholder ownership after a merger before an American company can give up its U.S. identity, and an “exit tax” to ensure multinational companies that change their identity pay a fair share of the U.S. taxes they owe on earnings stashed overseas. If Congress has not acted to address inversions and related loopholes, Hillary is also calling for Treasury to use its full legal authority to prevent inversions and restrict the tax loopholes they allow, including cracking down on “earnings stripping,” one of the key benefits of inversions.
>Use the proceeds to invest in long-term growth and jobs in the United States. Clinton’s plan will use the revenue from closing loopholes to help drive growth and job creation here in America. That means strengthening research and development; rewarding companies that bring good jobs to the United States; and expanding support for advanced manufacturing, small businesses, and startups. And while preventing inversions is a first, immediate step that cannot wait, Clinton believes in the need for broader changes in the business tax code and will discuss her approach over the course of the campaign.

newsflash Germany (and europe), you have garbage exports. Most of everything you make actually is never exported. There's little to no demand for it.

The only way your fucking countries are still relevant in the modern world are through creating and selling overpriced fashion or vehicles. Why do you think you're being overrun by fucking sand people? It's not just cause of shitty people in government and loose border laws. It's cause you fuckers over-specialize in extremely novel things which insures your countries alone or together in the EU cannot afford to employ more intelligible laws or lawmakers or law enforcers. The most of EU's economy exists by tourism of people memed into believing and wanting to see old architecture from hundreds of years ago.

I'm sorry your entire continent is a fucking joke that exists on legacy of long-dead ancestors alone subsidized by expensive cars. Geht weg oder komm hier. Deutschland is keine land.

>Simplify and cut taxes for small businesses so they can hire and grow. The smallest businesses, with one to five employees, spend 150 hours and $1,100 per employee on federal tax compliance. That’s more than 20 times higher than the average for far larger firms. We’ve got to fix that.
>Provide tax relief to working families from the rising costs they face. For too many years, middle-class families have been squeezed by rising costs for everything from child care to health care to affording college. Hillary will offer relief from these rising costs, including tax relief for Americans facing excessive out-of-pocket health care costs and for those caring for an ill or elderly family member.
>Pay for ambitious investments in a fiscally responsible way. Hillary believes that we can afford to pay for ambitious, progressive investments in good-paying jobs, debt-free college, and other measures to strengthen growth, broaden opportunity, and reduce inequality. Hillary will use the proceeds from ensuring the wealthiest and the largest corporations pay their fair share to pay for these investments without adding to the debt.

We have high corporate tax already so not lowering them is part of the argument. High local tax coupled with no protectionist tariffs or deals. Essentially the government is making workers in certain industries compete with people who literally live in factories (Foxconn for instance). The amount of industries they are letting this happen to grows every year and generally only helps large business and hurt people who source locally.

None of this is a "plan". They're all platitudes for an end goal that have been platitudes for 40 years. Wherever she got her "analysis" is likely just commentary of "if we fix loopholes in this area, this will happen". It looks to me like the "10m jobs" will occur because leftists think corporations will stay solvent just through fiat.
>if you outlaw them from leaving the country, all that work will stay here instead of going out of business.

like all tax increases that promise higher revenue, they do not take into account changes in purchasing habits of those with the money. its why they always fail.

>They become ultra rich because their absolute favorite thing in life is to do whatever they do that makes them rich

No, in most cases they usually become ultra-rich because of luck, because they're born in wealthy families which gives better access to wealth and opportunities, and because they use their existing wealth to influence regulations and the market to further enrich themselves.

Even in the case where they work hard to get rich, they don't always enjoy what they do, that's just a nice thing we tell ourselves, they just enjoy the fruits of their work.

Both Hillary and Trump's plans are bad.

>European Union (excluding intra-EU trade) exports 2,259,000,000,000$ in 2014
>United States exports 1,504,000,000,000$ in 2015
>Germany exports 1,292,000,000,000$ in 2015

If this is true Trump's plan would help me with a few hundred extra a month. That would definitely be nice.

Our taxes already go to child beheaders in Syria so the less I pay for crap like that the better.

They'll just up and leave like they've been doing, then tax us on shit returning to the USA.

tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/balance-of-trade
yeah nah

How many jobs does it kill?

People act like the millions working now that will lose their job (coal Miners good example) can just fuckin walk across the street and grab a new one.

If you've worked in a mine 20+ years what makes anyone think they can just turn around and learn a new marketable skill at the drop of the hat?

In Merica we have a phenomena known as rags-to-riches-to-rags-in-three generations. We really don't have many dynastic families and our economic mobility is fairly dynamic. The billionairs today usually aren't a decade from now. Over half of all Americans end up in the top 10% of earners at least once in their life, likewise they end up in the bottom 10%. But most people don't stay where they are economically.

>taxes
>adds jobs

The stupid, it hurts.

cool opinion.

data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.CD?year_high_desc=true

In short, yes.

When you take away money from rich people, they will do everything they can to get it back. The easiest way to do this is by selling tangibles, but to make more things to sell they need more workers (and money from those jobs to buy the things).

I fun thing to think about is that, proofed in mutilple studies, is that if all the money was taken away from the top 1% and given equally to the remaining 99%,l they would get all of their money back in a year. #Incentives

Why didn't she work with Obama in 2009 to help our workers? Wtf

Lester was a fucking joke of a moderator. Didn't challenge hill at all. I am not saying it was 100% biased against trump but the perception is there.

immensely underrated

lel

>add 10 million new jobs
>all of them people working multiple part-time jobs because so many industries have failed

Haha I did it myself having 1 person company in the US. Modern US democrats are braindead retarded. Holy fuck kek.

Trumps plan in a nutshell
>remove excess labor
>improve infrastructure
>make America a tax haven

Why does he think his method will work? Because it's what we did for ~175 years and it consistently raised our standard of living.

Hillary's is
>increase government spending
>demand corporations stay afloat in America
>increase consumer spending by raising minimum wage

Why does she think her method will work? Because GDP is measured at endpoint consumer sales and government spending. It's all a numbers game.

Didn't she tell Trump to buy her book if he wanted to know how to get the economy back on track?

I don't see how anyone can benefit from an increased minimum wage aside from people who work fast-food. I make about $18.00 an hour, am I going to get a $8.00/hr raise too? Pretty much it seems I should just go flip burgers half-assed and smoke weed in a freezer all day at McDonalds after I apply for foodstamps or whatever. What point is there to seek out a better paying job if I can just be a lazy shit serving fries?

Reminder that most "fiscal conservatives" are good goyim.

The corporations and rich people don't care about you, they only seek to exploit you. Deregulation led to Great Depression and the Global Recession. More tax cuts for the rich led to your massive deficit and the fact that you have the worst health care system in almost any Western nation.

Yeah, she told him to pick it up at an airport or something.

I think she just wanted to plug her book because it's bombing.
truthrevolt.org/news/hillarys-newest-book-bombs

I fail to see the big difference between my post and your link. EU exports without Intra-EU exports are higher than US-America ones. Pairing Germany and Netherlands already beats your exports.

Every POTUS since I can remember has said - "improve infrastructure."

The problem seems to be that it's really fucking expensive and nobody (read no congressmen that are up for re-election) wants to raise taxes or make the necessary cuts to pay for a real effort.

The big lie on all that is, nobody works for minimum wage. If you check out the labor statistics you'll see in a labor force of ~150m, about 3m work for minimum wage or less. Of that 3m, about 2m are tips workers who average $13+/hr. So who's that ~1million people (of a 150m workforce) in America working for minimum wage? Highschool kids stocking shelves after school.

It's all a feel good measure.

Government will have more money for gibmedats, so it will have to hire more people to distribute gibmedats.

We have the worst of everything because we're spending so much fucking money on defending worthless European nations from...Russians or something. Whatever we have left over we're giving it to either Israel, or Iran, or Egypt or whatever shithole African country.

Our entire country is falling apart and being flooded with third worlders, and Hillary wants to give a shout out to our (((allies))) to reassure them. Bitch, some faggot in Portugal isn't voting for you.

You sure you want to buy basic calculators for over $100, sound systems only available for the rich, or even cellphones just like before?

Her plan absolutely brings more income to the government, but only under the assumption that businesses stay in the states.

Problem is, the big businesses will flee. CEOs will retire and leave their problems to someone else, and we'll see corporations fall. Americans will rely more on imports and our money will all go overseas and into the economies of other nations.

The debt will nearly triple as less people have jobs and more people draw on welfare.

It has to be. My first job was years ago at Dominos when I was in high school. I got paid minimum wage and that shit sucked. I didn't protest outside of a pizzashop, I got out of high school and got a second job at a warehouse making almost twice that while I went to school. Literally didn't even need anything to get a warehouse job.
>can you speak English
>can you like...walk and carry boxes and stuff
>do you show up to work drunk everyday
>congratulations, here's $13.00/hr

Seriously, who the fuck works minimum wage and then bitches about it? Go apply at Amazon or FedEx or something.

Taxing the rich higher is literally "trickle down economics", you take money from the rich to give to the poor

The problem is, infrastructure is failing. We have a 'D' rating right now. And that's just physical infrastructure. Our grid is fucked. Our telecom is decades out of date. Our financial infrastructure needs upgraded. When he talks about infrastructure, it's not just roads.

And he's presented a plan to pay for it. Special tax on energy to upgrade the grid. Using the repatriation fee on overseas money to pay for physical infrastructure. He actually has plans for it, the industries which rely on the services, pay for them.

>Problem is, the big businesses will flee. CEOs will retire and leave their problems to someone else

People always say this, but it never happens. It's just an empty threat.

>The debt will nearly triple as less people have jobs and more people draw on welfare.
It will also increase if you just endlessly cut taxes for the rich and corporations, since the government can't use that extra tax revenue to lower the debt

Yeah, except it actually works. "Trickle down economics" as defined by conservatives doesn't, since the wealth never trickles down, the CEOs and rich people just keep it in their banks, or use it to buy your politicians.

Meanwhile we spend billions bombing other countries, and then how much more rebuilding their infrastructure better than we have ourselves.

Those jobs are gone m8. That's where the excess labor comes in.

Which is where his energy plan comes in. We're almost at manufacturing parity with China right now and energy is the third highest cost. Get energy down and manufacturing will return without lowering wages or raising costs.

The point is that hillary's plan will fuck over the middle class.
The really rich people like trump ALREADY DONT PAY ANY TAXES, because they can afford to go offshore or exploit loopholes.
That's why trump's plan is actually quite altruistic.

>People always say this, but it never happens. It's just an empty threat.

Is that why Burger King is a Canadian company now?

>U.S. corporations have pulled off about 60 inversions over the last two decades, according to Fortune. In the last five years alone, corporations have executed 40 inversions, the New York Times stated.

nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/corporate-tax-dodging-inversions-accelerating.html

The country is overpopulated, inflation is too high and jobs are about to be automated.

Taxing the wealthy will increase automation. Bringing in immigrants will over saturate the job force/ swell up the welfare rolls.

Because of this bubble, tech is increasingly becoming more expensive, while the quality of goods and services is decreased while the cost of them is increased. (Movies, tv, food, cars, videogames, cartoons, media, music, etc etc. have all lost quality)

The only way to circumvent this bubble is to deport illegal immigrants, revoke visas, close off our borders, implement tariffs on American companies that move industries overseas, make it a constitution amendment to ban technological automation is some way. Investigate and arrest any sort of corruption in any industry.

Cause at this rate, the US will be the United States of China

Consider this, the amount $1.7b given to Iran is an undersell. We actually gave $20~30billion. For that we could have built two walls.

Yeah, cities like Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore sure are thriving the success of it

>make it a constitution amendment to ban technological automation is some way
I guess everyone is expected to hand knit their own clothing and use rocks and sticks for tools in your new America.

If we deport excess labor our population will stabilize and we can make up the labor deficit with technological productivity.

First of all, the rich can't carry the society.
Her plans would basically decrease the taxes for normal people but increase the expenses, so nothing would change.

Second.
Hillary won't do shit against the rich. She's SPONSORED by them in every single way, if she gets into office.. they will be the ones in control and she will just be the puppet infront of the cameras.

Probably means public sector jobs, taxpayer funded and unproductive.
Likely won't meet the amount of private sector jobs it'll destroy even if she isn't fudging the number (she is).

kek, i got the image of hillary as lord voldemort with your post. and the email servers, clinton foundation, her 30 years career als politician and her career defending rapists as horcruxes.

>I am not an economist nor do I have knowledge of American taxes
Then why are you posting like you know anything?

>NPR
You just lost all credibility

The argument goes something like

Tax rich
Give to poor in some way
Poor will be more likely to spend
Demand drives growth
???
Profit

Alternatively:
Tax rich
Create nigger jobs programs that don't create wealth

It's left wing economics that has been the """wisdom""" since the great depression

I can't tell if this is well written bait or just typical germany

11 million jobs

Mowing lawns, holding signs at road construction, and picking fruits and vegetables

Muchas gracias

...

It's voodoo economics, the same shit was tried here and failed miserably, unemplyoment went up and they failed to increase tax revenue.

Nigga, that's how capitalism works. It uses our basest desires to create wealth for everyone and even succeeds through failure.

>Germany,you have garbage exports.
>Most of everything you make actually is never exported. There's little to no demand for it.
This has to be bait

kek'd and rekt

>Is that why Burger King is a Canadian company now?

Yet we generally have higher taxes on corporations and the rich, and more regulation (which also lessened the impact of the global recession). How could that be?

>>U.S. corporations have pulled off about 60 inversions over the last two decades, according to Fortune. In the last five years alone, corporations have executed 40 inversions, the New York Times stated.
I would assume it's a result of the global recession, and all the trickle down economics that started with Reagan.

What about Kansas, that's a great example of the failure of trickle down economics.

motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/sam-brownback-kansas-tax-cuts-trickle-down

At least with more taxation, you get the opportunity of the government making good use of that money. Sometimes it doesn't work in some places like Detroit, especially because of demographics, but sometimes it does, it's all about whether the state is able to implement good policies using that money and execute them well.

With conservative economics, we're supposed to believe the free market will fix it, and the rich CEOs who only have their own profits and nothing else in mind will somehow care about the sustainability of your economy and whether what they do is good for the population and the state. These kikes don't care, they will do whatever it takes to make more money, destroy your environment, exploit your citizens and treat them like shit, and when they've sucked up all the money they can from your system, or make it collapse after the bubble pops, they will just go somewhere else like parasites.

ok ahmed

Canada has lower corporate taxes than the USA. It's the normal citizens they have higher taxes than the USA on.

Meant for

Your corporate taxes work out to half ours.

Not and economics guy but i doubt it
Circulating money won't create any jobs only if she intends to let the money float into smaller businesses to initiate growth and even than small businesses relying on government funding won't be competitive anyhow, just imagine the money they would have to pay back

But we know that won't happen anyway

We know about her corporate connections so i would guess the money would go straight to banks, corporations or her "friends" who helpt her achive presidency

Also
why have top economics not thought about it before? If it works that is
I always wonder all politicians know exactly how to solve every problem on earth but only as long they're not in office after that they seem to forget the answers
Someone should write em down desu

>motherjones

forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/07/18/kansas-an-unsung-hero-for-economic-growth/#aa1f8735992f

forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2015/10/21/486-million-in-growth-later-kansas-historic-tax-cut-should-set-example-for-neighbors/#7c841d9d2a94

If you give the money to the government you are not deciding what to do with it, they manage it and spend it in any way they want (how about some nice new cars to move around to check what to spend more money on?), if you cut taxes, the individual decides what to do with its money cause he knows best what to do with it

...

Reaganomics died with Reagan, Bush and Bush 2 despite any pretensions of being champions of free-market capitalism were as economically centrist/corporatist as they come.

It took you more than 5 hours to respond to that? Quit the weed you fucking leaf.

That's why Pablo here is going to the US to work as a gardener because he knows back in Mexico the evil gubmint will take his pesos if he worked legally

The entire premise of her plan is that the Federal Government will be able to invest ""rich"" people's money into jobs.

There is not a single example of this ever working to produce a net positive gain, the only thing the government creates is corruption, waste and bureaucrats.

You have to be fucking stupid to believe anything she says. All of the banks, all of the multinational corporations, all of the corrupt forign governments, all of them are paying and shilling for hillary.

Poor people and the middle class are not producers, giving them extremely large tax breaks would not create jobs to the extent that high incentives for the """""wealthy""""" would. And its hard to even consider the people that Hillary would rape with taxes as wealthy.

No, I like to work in Mexico, and I'm aware of what is like to live with a big government and how terrible it is, and also I work in the oil industry for the state company, so I know first hand how bad is protectionism, big government, unions and everything else Democrats love

The former right wing president from my country promised and then created one million jobs in 4 years on a 16 million population country without even raising taxes.
If the USA can't create 10 million jobs while raising taxes with their 300 million population country it's because you guys are fucking idiots)(or that it was exactly because of the tax increase that they couldn't meet their goal, like our current social democrat president is doing with an increasing unemployment followed by tax increases).
In short, Hillary's plan is demagogic garbage that could be solved without even raising taxes and creating waaaay more jobs at the same time.

>Do tax increases on the wealthy generate more jobs?

No. And neither do tax decreases. Trickle down is a hoax.

The only thing that generates more jobs is buying local. Always favor goods from your town, county, state, country before anything else, even if you'd pay a bit more (for similar quality, the price is never that different).

People on here keep thinking there is a magic pill for job creations, that this or that candidate will magically pass a policy that creates jobs. But no. We have to fix our buying habits. Don't like trade imbalances with China? Stop buying shit from China when there are local alternatives.

There's only one real policy that would impact this and it's clear labeling for goods. 100% America, Assembled in USA (with X% of American goods), Processed in the USA. Strictly enforced and clearly visible so the population knows what to support.

Making it too fucking expensive for the upper % with taxes is what's dangerous. The last thing you want is them moving elsewhere and taking their money with them. Who will pay for society's bills then? They should pay taxes like everybody else but I'd rather see the upper % being able to spend their money on things that actually drives the economy than letting it all into the governments hands. I mean what goes around, comes around. But that's just me having more faith in capitalism than socialism when it comes to generating jobs.

>motherjones
C O M E D Y G O L D
O
M
E
D
Y

G
O
L
D

>unions are bad
Premium meme right there
At least here in Europe broad worker unions are one of the few institutions who aren't trying to cuck the workforce

She said that "independent experts" already examined her plan and said it's good. Sounds legit, right?

tax decreases makes businesses more invest in the country since the investments get cheaper. and investments = jobs

it's fighting the outsourcing and helping small companies

>be Hillary
>be in government for 30 years
>have miraculous economic plan that would generate 10 million new jobs
>coincidentally never implement it, never tell anyone about it, never write up any legislation for it

There, I just fact-checked it for you. It's bullshit.

>tax decreases makes businesses more invest in the country

This is only because poor, unproductive shitholes like Ireland set-up ridiculous corporate tax rates to draw a bunch of empty corporate HQs to their country because 10% of trillions is more than Ireland would ever be able to produce. Fucking potato niggers.

Did anyone actually look at the fact-checker on her website? I was going to but I'm just full-up on shameless heavily-biased truthbending

I'm curious, how did he achieve this?
Did Piñera profit from the increased demand for resources or from the reformations of Bachelet and Lagos?

hah, tax's are optional, tax's cannot create jobs , jobs are optional.
nice question and look up her hati operations , she loves big ## that are not provable.

>10 million jobs

Even Hitler couldn't do that, so no one can.

They would leave. IKEA came to the US because of the lower taxes. Why would any corporation stay?

Wealthy individuals and corporations are sitting on record levels of cash, yet they aren't significantly expanding capacity / employment / wages because there isn't sufficient demand. Most people don't have enough income to consume the goods and services if supply were expanded. By taxing the wealthy and spending that on infrastructure, schools, and scientific research we would employ millions of people on useful public investments while increasing aggregate demand.

unfortunately true. didn't know america has the same opportunities to cut taxe through ireland like europe. hope trump will adress this loophole when he's president

tl not going through everyone's shite. There is no way a country can tax itself into prosperity. It makes no logical sense. Taxing the wealthy pushes them to shift more assets offshore. Taxing estates won't work. Unless your corporate finance advisors are complete autists, you'll have a loophole to pay as little as possible. You can trust that Trump pays close to jack shit in taxes. Raising taxes only affects the poor. Faggots.

You have to buy the book

You know someone is a shill when theyre directly linking to Mother Jones, Huff Po, BuzzFeed and Daily Beast

No idea, but if you look at gdp growth charts you can see that for each year after the end of Pinochet's government our growth rate had decreased more and more being almost the same as the south american average by Bachelet's first government, until Piñera got in and lifted us above that average line by a significant margin. Now it's Bachelet's second government and we are below that line.
The increasing price of copper had probably a lot to do with it, but considering he promised those million jobs and 6% annual growth (with both becoming true) I'm pretty sure he had a real plan.
He's also doctorate economist and billionaire, that also plays an important role.

It doesn't matter looking at the details of anything Clinton says. Because she doesn't mean any of it.

If you can't believe she'll do anything she says, there's no point in checking it.

t. berg

0.5 shekels was transferred to your account.

Are you guys really this daft? Taxing a country into prosperity? god almighty.

So how did /d/ react?

Continually reducing or increasing tax rates does not maximize revenue. There is an optimal point that extracts income while not going too high to cripple the economy or too low to send the government into deficit.

Yeah it helps create a lot of jobs overseas when the corporations move there to avoid the tax hike.

These states and the federal government are too fucking greedy to realize that all this does is dick over the people.

Countries invest taxes into public goods that benefit the overall economy and society, thus increasing prosperity.

Take a look at the Legatum Prosperity Index and taxation does not hinder the Nordic nations. If anything, it allows them the revenue to invest in themselves.

Come on man, he's asking for input. He knows he doesn't know and is seeking elaboration from someone who might be able to help. There's nothing wrong with wanting to learn.

Actually it was just the first result I got when I searched "Kansas trickle down economics".

If anything I'm a Nazi shill. Unregulated international capitalism is destroying you with mass immigration for cheap labor, wars in the Middle-East for oil, the military-industrial complex and Israel shekels, degenerate mass media, wrecking the environment for profits, killing your local communities and small businesses, outsourcing your jobs and culture to other countries, and in a lot of cases it's not even good for the economy.

But my waifu is from Ukraine!

>well, if i am a corporation and I have plants overseas where it is still cheaper to produce after the tax cuts compared the US, what incentive do i have to close that down and create a new plant in the US.

simple: access to the US market. As the poster mentioned, tariffs/duties will significantly increase the price you have to charge customers, thereby reducing your competitiveness on the US market.

That's humorous. The Nazi state destroyed millions of its own people in wars, was one giant military industrial state, wrecked its environment and others' for the MIC, conscripted local communities and nationalized tons of businesses.

>Give more than they get
>Illinois
Is that why we're bankrupt?

>Do tax increases on the wealthy generate more jobs?
By itself no.
The money created by taxes could be used in public sectors to generate jobs though.

You do realise that the American IRS can do fuck all if the company you speak consists of a holding company housed in an office tower on Amsterdam's South-Axis that stashes the profits it collects from it's subsidiaries in places like Ireland (and a motley gang of other islands), in other offshore tax-friendly places such as the Bahamas, or continental European snowflakes like Switzerland and Luxembourg. America and America's tax collectors don't even enter into it m8... Where do you think Apple's profits currently are? And what makes you think they would ever change that, ESPECIALLY if a proposal like yours goes through? They don't like the US's tax climate as it is, let alone if you guys were to go full retard.

See
This is what I'm talking about.

We're fucked as a country if it's another 4 years of Obama style government that Hillary wants to/will do
Right now we're sitting on an Automotive loan bubble that almost the same as the housing market in 08
the defaults on the loans are up 13%
with the outstanding balanced owe just hitting over a trillion dollars
you'll see one analyst saying it's nothing we can repo
while others will tell you this is the same shady shit they did in in the early 2000s till it burst in 2008
20% interest on a 6 year loan for a car that's set up depreciate once it rolls off the lot to a person who's credit is so bad it's almost a guaranteed default
there much worse thing that combined with this looks like another recession may be coming lads

No, but trickle down wealth is complete bullshit so cutting taxes on the middle and lower class might help.

Holy shit. This guy gets it. And he's...I can't even say the word.

You want a green card? Move here. Because nobody in the U.S. understands this.

>Do tax increases on the wealthy generate more jobs?
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. She's just trying to benefit the children of the Yankee Middle Class while backstabbing the poor. Obviously the "jobs" that she's talking about are shitty service jobs

>her own top economists
Could be anyone. It depends on overall strategy.

Why do you believe that? Who did Hillary murder?

I mean, people keep going on and on about that but I'm beginning to think it's just a meme with no truth.

All government jobs are nonproductive. Every penny paid to a government worker is a penny lost now, and a dollar lost later.

>I'm curious as to why she wouldn't have implemented it earlier.
She was secretary of state, in charge of foreign affairs. The economy really wasn't her responsibility.

>I just learned the Cyrillic alphabet look how smart I am

Same here famalam

I caught the first twenty minutes at the gym and she's sitting there talking about how supposedly privileged Trump was from his family but it made my neurons fire and realize that Trump's dad also had to work to where he got just like her dad and that she could go fuck herself. ALSO, that's some huge fucking hypocrisy to sit there and try to look like one of us "little people" when, both of these people having billions of dollars, she uses her money for political gain, laundering, false pretense of charity, etc etc...

HRC IS A MESS

There's a list of dozens of murdered people in her wake. Google it you lazy faggot.

>This is what I'm talking about.

I could have added: The office tower in Amsterdam houses hundreds and hundreds of other holding businesses as well. However, little to nothing actually gets done there.. Employees, if present, are only there to fill certain formalities or requirements that might or might not be present in the tax-scheme the company it concerns run. Some might have a fax machine or some plants, usually for no other reason than some kind of guideline or magistrate ruling that says 'an empty room is not an office, an office must at least contain X Y and Z in terms of office supplies, and perhaps a coffee machine and a plant'... A company that is confronted with a ruling or guideline like that will promptly outfit their so called 'mailbox firm' with X Y and Z in terms of office supplies, a plant and a coffee machine. Bonus points if the person coming by to water the plant weekly counts as their obligatory employee to make it a 'real' company.

Regulations don't do shit. Coorporations will pay taxes, but not more than they deem absolutely necessary or reasonable.. If you try to force them to comply with regulations they deem unacceptable, they will simply find a loophole to make those regulations not apply to them, and failing that move somewhere where those regulations don't exist. Rule 1 in taxing: Don't overtax those or that which can pick up it's money and go.. Why do you think the Netherlands is a tax haven for corporations, while simultaneously having a top income tax bracket of 52% for citizens? Because citizens, unlike corporations, typically cannot leave...

>inb4 those eebil corporations
Corporations are not people. Shareholders are people.. Actually, often shareholders are not even people.. Shareholders are pension funds, banks and other institutionalised investors. Investors that represent us, our parents and our pensions....

GDP = C (consumption) + I (investments) + government spending + net imports - exports.

With Donald's plan to tax less consumption will rise since people will have more money, not taxing as much counts as government spending because they're putting that money back into the economy, and with rich people having more money they will invest more. Lastly he is tackling imports and exports with his agressive foreign trade policy. He is literally raising the GDP in every way possible at once.

Greece is literally going bankrupt because the public sector generated most of their jobs... What do you think the public sector is, and who'se money it represents? More importantly: What do you think the public sector creates or produces?

Well yes, my friend. I did my research and that looks like a truth.

Vince Foster

Why don't you go to Brazil instead and look at how they are doing because of that? Fucking monkey.

Trump utterly destroyed her.

He talked about real plans and policy and Clinton just talked about Trump.

He had her on the ropes the whole times. All she could do was arrogantly smirk while she was losing. It was embarrassing for her and for the Democratic party.

Almost all the polls except for LOL (((CNN))) agree.

Trump dominated

More taxes create more government related jobs. Politicians can not create jobs any other way. By staying out of the way of small business and up they can create the illusion of creating jobs.

Taxes on the wealthy rarely make an impact. It only costs a few hundred dollars to hide your money, if you own a personal interest foundation then the fund can "own" your house, car, etc. which means that you can pay nearly nothing in taxes.

In the event of your death, the ownership of this foundation can transfer to whomever you want it to, essentially bypassing the estate tax entirely.

A rise on estate taxes are merely the government trying to take even more of your middle class granddads leftover savings.

Job creation is also bullshit. Jobs create themselves organically, when there is money to be made and there isn't a lot of money to be made here domestically.

Nobody is asking how America is going to cope in this new age of automation. nobody. Trying to bring us back into the industrial sector is not going to be effective unless global legislation prevents automation. 10 million new jobs would last for a decade, at most.

What this smells like to me is the service industry. Short, inconsistent hours. Little pay. very Little bargaining power from the employees. The type of jobs you have to work three of just so you can afford to live.

Say no to these fucking jobs.We have enough wal marts in this country.

well, not exactly
it's + exports - imports
also investments mostly depend on interest rates, not taxation. since it's close to 0 already then investments always at a peak level on papr, but keep in mind that this is only good in theory because investments always involve risk and having a floor low interest rate for a long time eventually make the market waste resources on said risk.
The basic keynes model also ignores outsourced investments, instead only counting them as imports, but international corps often effectively outsource and basically increase the I value of foreign nations, IE stealing from the domestic market. Trump wants to instead ban or limit outsourcing so the I value would only rise domestically
also reducing tax will reduce government spending, but this will be mostly offset by personal consumption since the government spends 100% of taxes, but give it back to the people and they'll still spend maybe 80-90% of it, depending on MPC value

overall his plans are good to incrase growth, but it's mathematically impossible to increase all values at once (as some of them are affected in reverse by the same policy) so don't expect him to improve absolutely EVERYTHING at once