You make money by producing revenue not from sponsoring everyone’s life.
Nobody is “sponsoring” anybody’s life.
And you’re just wrong. “Producing revenue” helps corporations, it does nothing for 99.9% of American citizens. I can’t believe we still have to debunk this supply-side horse shit.
Over and over again, Scandinavian countries (and others) have shown us that, if you provide the very basics for human survival (e.g. shelter, health care, food) and perhaps some basic services needed for gainful employment like internet and public transportation, people are not only far happier and healthier, but they are also more productive members of society. It’s almost as if it’s nearly impossible to be productive when you are constantly stressed over the very basics for human survival. Wild.
There. Is. Literally. No. Down. Side. Unless. You. Are. A. Billionaire.
And even then… Oh no, you have to be a $100 millionaire instead of. $3 billionaire. How will you survive 🙄
First of all, everyone can gain from corporations’ successes
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha… that’s a good one dude. Didn’t expect such a laugh this early. No. Just no.
Supply-side economics (AKA trickle-down) does. not. work. Frankly, there is nothing you can say here that will counteract the decades of real world data we have to prove that no, lowering taxes for corporations absolutely DOES NOT help the working class. It does the exact opposite by enlarging the pay gap between the people who run the company, and the people who actually do the fucking work.
I’d like to believe you’re smarter than that…
Second of all, Scandinavian countries have quite a good model. However, they also have very strong economies to fund it.
True, you’d probably need to be maybe the most robust economy in the world to do that… Oh wait. That’s us…
First of all, you said regular people cannot benefit from companies’ growth, which is clearly false, because as per my previous reply, you can easily buy their stocks and become one of the shareholders. They even pay you dividends and your wealth grows.
Second issue you mentioned can be easily fixed by having competition in the market. When there are more companies, they have to improve conditions for workers, otherwise they will end up working for the competition. If no company in the market does it, thanks to capitalism you can start you own, offer the best conditions for your employees and they will come to you from the competition. Last but not least, whilst I agree lowering taxes does not necessarily mean rising people’s wages, it at least motivates people to start their own company (which creates more competition and that’s what we want). And yes, people who run the company are equally as important as the workers. It’s literally their responsibility to make decisions regarding the company’s direction. If you have a terrible management, the company goes bankrupt and workers, just like the people who run the company, lose their incomes.
With last statement I agree, US has the space to invest into free medicare, however at the cost of having less influence over the world.
Nobody is “sponsoring” anybody’s life.
And you’re just wrong. “Producing revenue” helps corporations, it does nothing for 99.9% of American citizens. I can’t believe we still have to debunk this supply-side horse shit.
Over and over again, Scandinavian countries (and others) have shown us that, if you provide the very basics for human survival (e.g. shelter, health care, food) and perhaps some basic services needed for gainful employment like internet and public transportation, people are not only far happier and healthier, but they are also more productive members of society. It’s almost as if it’s nearly impossible to be productive when you are constantly stressed over the very basics for human survival. Wild.
There. Is. Literally. No. Down. Side. Unless. You. Are. A. Billionaire.
And even then… Oh no, you have to be a $100 millionaire instead of. $3 billionaire. How will you survive 🙄
First of all, everyone can gain from corporations’ successes. It literally takes 20 minutes to buy their stocks.
Second of all, Scandinavian countries have quite a good model. However, they also have very strong economies to fund it.
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha… that’s a good one dude. Didn’t expect such a laugh this early. No. Just no.
Supply-side economics (AKA trickle-down) does. not. work. Frankly, there is nothing you can say here that will counteract the decades of real world data we have to prove that no, lowering taxes for corporations absolutely DOES NOT help the working class. It does the exact opposite by enlarging the pay gap between the people who run the company, and the people who actually do the fucking work.
I’d like to believe you’re smarter than that…
True, you’d probably need to be maybe the most robust economy in the world to do that… Oh wait. That’s us…
First of all, you said regular people cannot benefit from companies’ growth, which is clearly false, because as per my previous reply, you can easily buy their stocks and become one of the shareholders. They even pay you dividends and your wealth grows.
Second issue you mentioned can be easily fixed by having competition in the market. When there are more companies, they have to improve conditions for workers, otherwise they will end up working for the competition. If no company in the market does it, thanks to capitalism you can start you own, offer the best conditions for your employees and they will come to you from the competition. Last but not least, whilst I agree lowering taxes does not necessarily mean rising people’s wages, it at least motivates people to start their own company (which creates more competition and that’s what we want). And yes, people who run the company are equally as important as the workers. It’s literally their responsibility to make decisions regarding the company’s direction. If you have a terrible management, the company goes bankrupt and workers, just like the people who run the company, lose their incomes.
With last statement I agree, US has the space to invest into free medicare, however at the cost of having less influence over the world.