Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Steve Lehto"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Doctor comes from Doctorate, as in Doctorate Degree. it has literally NOTHING to do with medicine.
the title Doctor is bestowed upon literally Anyone who earns a doctoral degree in any subject. Philosophy, history, engineering, math, physics, etc.
PhD = Doctorate of Philosophy
MD = Doctorate of Medicine
Medical doctors are a subset of the larger group of doctors. They do not have sole rights to that title. and if it's so confusing, then medical doctors, if anyone, should be stripped of the right to use that title if they feel it's causing so much confusion, as it is medical people who have co-opted the term improperly in teh first place.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sundoga4961 sure, kick, scream, and sling insults. That works very time.
"The entire purpose of government is to provide services for the populace" 100% wrong.
the gov exists to secure the borders of the nation first and foremost. then to conduct trade and alliances with foreign nations. Then to enforce the rule of law and settle disputes. Beyond that there is little gov should be doing. And in the US the federal go is supposed to leave pretty much the rest up to the states to handle.
It is Not the role of gov to provide healthcare, insurance, free shit (welfare for lazy people), nor to restrict what toxins individuals freely choose to ingest, nor to tell people what cars, stoves or otherwise they should buy.
that is left to the free market, and it worked really well until the gov intervened. OSHA has not increased workplace safety more than was already happening. Welfare has done worse than charity to reduce poverty.
Gov interference in healthcare is why it can be so expensive in the US.
"But to me, the solution would be a properly regulated and stepped income tax, starting at zero tax for the first bracket and rising to somewhere around 75% at the highest bracket." we already have a stepped bracket. The last time they had taxes that high it stopped investments, and resulted in more tax dodging, and the gov brought in LESS taxes than it did with Lower tax rates.
" Second, it shifts the greatest burden of paying taxes to those who are both the most able to pay without suffering injury, and who benefit the most from the very system they are responsible for supporting" that is already the case. the top 50% of US earners pay pretty much All the taxes. And the top 10% or less pay something like 50% of all the taxes. and that's with a top tax of something like 39%. But myself and others run small businesses, and when they lowered taxes a few years ago, the economy took off like a drag car and prices dropped, States were having surplus. then they came back and removed all the tax breaks and things slowed back to a crawl and prices went up again.
"Third, a high level of taxation on corporate profits encourages companies to reinvest profits back into the company", but that's not what happens, a lot is sent offshore to hide in tax havens.
"I do like the idea for commercial property. If we included rental residential property in that, it would act as a downward stressor for rent levels, too." you're insane, it drive rent prices sky high. It's very obvious you have no understanding of how taxes work. Price fixing is a disaster too, especially for housing. those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. open a damned economics and history book.
2
-
@sundoga4961 you're a pretty awful historian then. Being a historian doesn't make you an expert in economics and business though.
"Plus, you would prevent such things as government being involved in roads, zoning and other city planning, provision of necessary resources such as water, electricity and gas, and whole hosts of services they either provide or pay others to provide. " wrong, that is for the states. it would still happen.
" Well, no, actually. Before such things as standards and practices, consumer law and employment law, the American consumer was getting comprehensively screwed. Besides the most egregious examples - Company Scrip and Stores, cross-market Trusts and area-control agreements come to mind - there was no guarantees of quality of goods, lifespan, or safety of foodstuffs. A perfect example occurs during the US Civil War, to the Federal Government, as it happens. Soldiers in the field were opening cans of meat and finding the contents to be rotten. That can't happen to properly canned meat...unless it was rotten when it was canned." Yes, there will always be examples to cherry pick from, but they were not the norm. but back then, most people grew their own food, so not an issue. Also, when the gov is purchasing things in a war, they have a right to impose standards, as a customer. But they don't have the right to restrict private sales between private individuals.
"They also continue to function in situations where charities are overwhelmed - in both Great Depressions, hundreds of thousands of people died needlessly from starvation because they couldn't find work, couldn't earn a living and the charities had nothing for them." not the role of gov to provide jobs or welfare. The people combined bad business practices with bad farming practices in a time of extreme warming and drought. Banking regulations help, and people learning to farm better (by suffering the consequences of bad practices and learning not to do it again) fix that. No jobs programs or welfare needed.
"Bullshit. OSHA was enacted because nothing much WAS happening." that's a lie. Workplace safety was trending up, workplace deaths and accidents trending down. The trend did not accelerate after OSHA came along, and now OSHA has become far too overbearing that it actually prevents businesses from existing at all.
"Charity has never done any good at all in reducing poverty, " that is a lie. While charity was going on (and it still is), poverty was trending down, but after welfare came about, the rate at which poverty was declining slowed down, and even started reversing and going up since COVID and Biden's inflation magnification policies.
Charity also does more to deal with natural disaster relief than gov does, and that is a proven fact.
"in both Great Depressions, hundreds of thousands of people died needlessly from starvation because they couldn't find work, couldn't earn a living and the charities had nothing for them." nobody owed them anything. survival is YOUR personal responsibility. To force others to provide for you against their will is Slavery. You advocate for slavery. They failed to act in a smart manner to safeguard their survival, and they died as a result. Actions have consequences.
"dropping taxes does stimulate the economy...in the short term. In some cases, it's very much the right thing to do.
But long-term it causes problems." Wrong, the tax breaks always end before long term data can be collected. But having no taxes at all doesn't hurt an economy one bit, it only hurts gov spending. Having taxes hurts an economy, no matter how little, as it takes money from people who would have spent or invested it back into the economy. You're arguing the wrong things, from teh wrong perspective.
" again, not true. Investment was just fine in the 1950s and 1960s with significantly higher tax levels. In the 1970s...we had the oil crisis and the economic disruption of losing the Vietnam War, " you claim it was good to have high taxes in the 50s and 60s, but then acknowledge it was actually bad instead, but use events from later to explain why it was bad. you can't cite the future as a reason for what happened in the past. And data of tax rates and gov revenues is very clear, the US brought in less taxes at high tax rates, and there was more tax dodging as a result. The gov brings in more taxes overall, in lower tax environments by virtue of volume of economic activity and people worrying less about low taxes.
"Tax haven systems only work when the government permits them to. Witness the tightening of foreign investment laws in the US in the 1920s, which simply closed the gate - it defined monies sent overseas as profits and required immediate payment of tax owing. A brute force solution, we could do better now, but it worked. And again, the 1950s and 1960s disagree with you - much more money was being reinvested and much less going as dividends to shareholders." shows how little you know. there is always a way to cheat the system, and every law you pass to close one loophole creates two more new loopholes. It's a result of complexity.
"Your argument (for want of a better word) makes no sense. If a rental agency or private owner must either get a tenant or pay higher levels of tax, they will be incentivized to do what they can to get a tenant - such as dropping rents. Increasing rent would only make it LESS likely to find a tenant!" wow you're dumb. The problem with rent is that people can't simply wait it out and go homeless waiting for the owner to lower their rates, whereas the owner can wait months to years. So people pay the rate that is available or they don't. The higher taxes will simply be passed along to the tenant, or the owner will simply stop renting out their private property altogether. you are a terrible historian, if you are even a historian at all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1