Comments by "Newbie Prepper" (@newbieprepper8451) on "Ted Cruz Caught Escaping To Cancun During Texas Winter Crisis" video.
-
3
-
@jojen yea sure, you know this as fact because you have some secret evident of it? let me guess, the people that would be needed to build up the building would have flown in from other places too right? and the local shops in the area would have flown in people to work in them from other areas right? and the property values in those areas would have only gone up for the people that would have flown in from other areas right?
lets see, Amazon added 800 jobs in a NYC office they already had instead, ALL those jobs went to locals. WV on MD i forget which state got the A2 headquarters bid was rejoicing in the extra economic output in thier state and the locality.
even IF only 10% of the jobs went to locals, that would have been 2500 good jobs, and the other people flying in for those jobs would need housing which would boost the rental market. local shops would have been inundated with more business needing to hire more people, and more small businesses would have opened up to supply the need of those 25,000 workers.
not to mention the $30 - $3 = $27 BILLION with a capital B in projected tax revenue generated from that project over 10 years, thats $2.7 billion per year extra that could have been generated to help the ailing infrastructure and implement social programs for people left behind by the project. AOC could have argued that some of that $27 billion in new tax revenue should be used for projects to help the poor people in the neighborhood. but alas, it was not meant to be, and when EVERY other politician railed against her and grilled her for it, she stapped away and claimed she didnt do anything, this shows that EVERYONE including AOC knew she did bad when she even denied later of doing anything, liek a little kid, "it wasnt me".
i may have a smooth brain, but at least i have a brain, what do you have considering you side with AOC when SHE wont even take responsibility for this messup and EVERYONE knows it was a messup.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jojen i understand gentrification very well, and i know it doesnt help the poor residents. and i know Amazon wanted tax breaks, but even with the tax breaks it would have resulted in $27 billion projected tax revenue. if she was smart and had any in depth thoughts she could have argued and forced the issue to have some of that money diverted into social programs to help the poor people with college and education programs to give them a leg up and a better ability to participate with a good skillset.
i mean seriously, with her clout, instead of arguing "amazon bad" i would have argued publicly that the extra tax revenue should at least partially be diverted towards helping the schools in the area, and to give poor residents free college courses that could help elevate their skill levels to be potential employees on par with Amazon employees with their skillset. "hey look, this guy is only good at flipping burgers, use that tax money to send him to college so that he can be hired by Amazon".
instead, no new jobs, no tax revenue, the neighborhood still stays CHIT, the schools still stay CHIT, the people DONT get a leg up. but its OK, AOC came out and handed out some crumbs for the poor people, that makes it all good.
1
-
@Pancakegr8 im curious to see what your idea of a living wage is? ive seen examples of peopel posting that $15 an hour is not enough, and $20 an hour is not enough.
what i would suggest instead? how about instead of raising peoples wage just by default, offer some training courses. how about we popularize trade schools again? right now, Trucking companies across the country are offering hiring bonuses, some as low as $3000 and some as high as $12000, they are also offering to cover CDL driving classes and expenses. in other words, they will send you to learn how to drive a truck AND they will pay you for doing it AND give you a sign on bonus at the start.
plumbers unions are suffering a shortfall of plumbers in the near future and are actually looking at hiring on young people and paying for their training and education. a good plumber after a few years in the field can make up to $25 an hour, and thats just a few years, its not uncommon to find a blumber of 20-30 years making $60 or more per hour.
Carpenters union are starting to do the same, my nephew joined a carpenters union 1.5 years ago and is already making $22 an hour.
electricians unions are doing the same thing, in fact, there was an article not too long ago that they are suffering because most electritians in the country are getting ready to retire. i know of 1 electrician making $625,000 per year, although he works on those high tension high capacity lines, but still.
cell tower install techs, as technology progresses they will need more and more people to build those, they make $125k or more per year.
have the government start investing in green energy the right way, i dont mean making silly loans to companies called Solindra that go under and bankrupt in a year, but have the government maybe start funding technology courses for engineers and techicians. you want to fill the world with wind turbines but you have no one to repair those wind turbines. or solar panels.
its not about giving people more money hoping to prop them up, its about giving people better opportunities to give them better potential to prop them up.
if you want to make someone into a doctor, you dont give money to the hospital, you take a person and give them the oportunity to become a doctor by opening up the doors to the medical school that will teach them. how many actual grants are there for medical students? how does someone become a wind turbine techician? where does someone even go to join a trade union?
have the government help the people connect with those resources instead of just throwing money at people hoping to solve their problems.
it wont help a person if you raise the min wage to $15 an hour because very shortly inflation will catch up and that $15 an hour will not be enough either.
have the government collaborate with all those resources to give people a better life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pancakegr8 the downside is higher taxes. we already subsidize Walmart employees in part with welfare because they cant afford to buy food or pay rent or other issues. subsidizing wage increases would be direct money payments. for example, if a person is making $9 an hour, and you subsidize them to $15 an hour, thats $6 per hour as a direct payemnt, and someone else needs to be taxed at $6 an hour to make up that payment.
if half the country needs to be subsidized at $6 per hour then the other half that dont need to be subsidized needs to be taxed at $6 per hour. that could lead to potential job losses in the form of people quitting their jobs or it could lead to more subsidization. i make $21 an hour, if i get taxed $6 an hour on top of the taxes i already pay, that would drop me to $15 an hour. right now as a single father, im doing ok at $21 an hour, if i drop down by $6 to $15 an hour, it will be much harder for me to make ends meet and i would be strugling and probably require my own subsidy, and if the government wont subsidize me because im at $15 an hour, then what is the point of me working my azz off just to strugle, i think at that point i would quit and have the gov take care of my needs completely.
the other downside of subsidizing is that it breeds an atmosphere of dependance, peopel become dependent on those subsidies. plenty of times i have heard that people are preferring to stay on unemployment during this pandemic because they make more on unemployment than at work, so there are plenty of people with the mentallity of not striving to be better, and i kind of understand their side, whats the point of working when its a dead end job? but give them an opportunity to start working in a job that pays little but has great potential, like a trade profesion, it starts small, but there is always the outlook that eventually you will make big. a burger flippers only outlook is hoping the deep frier spill on them and they could sue.
1
-
@Pancakegr8 do you think those billionaires are billionaires because they have billions stashed away in a bank account? most of Bezos wealth is locked in his stocks. most billionaires that run companies have stocks, that is their net value, on paper, because of the stocks and stock options they hold, not because thats how much money they have on hand. so if you start taxing them based on their value, they wont be the only ones that suffer. a lot of those stocks are owned by hedge funds which run 401k portfolios. so lets say you tax Bezos at 50% of his value. that means he has to sell 50% of his stocks to pay that tax. when large sale orders like that pop up, it lowers the price of that stock. so now the many 401k accounts that hold that stock lose some value, depending on how much is being sold off, but if $30 billion goes on sale at once, that would significantly drop the share price and negatively impact various 401k accounts. its more complex than this, i know, this is just a laymans basic example, im not including that this would have a panic ripple effect into various other stocks affecting more 401k, but in effect, you tax someone heavily forcing them to sell a large portion of their stocks which affects 401k accounts which severely impacts retirement accounts for numerous individuals. so now these individuals that were saving for their retirement nestegg saw its value drop, possibly significantly, and therefore affecting their ability to retire, and so they have to work longer or possibly still retire and maybe even rely on government subsidies because their retirement accounts lost a lot of value.
redistributing wealth is not the right way to go in my opinion, creating wealth by giving people opportunities to gain skills to create wealth is a much better strategy. maybe instead of giving out foreign aid to other countries, maybe use that money to re-invest in our own people, to create a strategy of pumping out higher skilled people that can do more with those opportunities. if you tax Bezos 100%, then you get $60 billion, then you can redistribute that wealth to people, but the following year you cant tax Bezos and gain billions because you taxed it away from him the previous year, now what do you redistribute the following year? at 60 billion redistributed across 350 million people, you can give each person $171.00 per person, its innefective at helping most people more than 2 -3 months, then what? but if you give people an education and skills, they can use those skills and education to lift themselves out of their predicament.
give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.
1
-
@Pancakegr8 actually yes, there is an end to taxing their income, if you tax their billions away, then they no longer have billions to make more billions for you to tax their money away. you think Bezos jumped from 20 bil to 60 bil because of the money he made? no, he jumped that much in value mostly because the stocks he owns rose up in value, if you take those stocks away today then tomorrow he doesnt have any stocks to rise in value. dont get me wrong, i think its an obscene amount of wealth to hold in one place, but to take it away just to waste it fruitlessly is a waste.
we have welfare programs already in place that help feed people, and we have other social programs that help house people and take care of most of their needs, what we need to do is eliminate the waste in our government and start targeting that money towards education and skill improvement, the people are already getting fish, its no point in giving them more fish thinking they need more fish, now is the time to teach them how to fish.
if you have a burger flipper making minimum wage just getting by, do you really want to give him more money to help him get by better or do you want to teach him how to make a better life for himself.
of course there are people who dont have food, so give them food, im not saying to not give peopel their basic needs, but what i am saying is dont concentrate on that being the only thing, meet peoples basic needs and divert the majority of it to making peoples lives better or else you really havent helped anyone do anything other than eat good steak for a little while.
taxing billionaires is not going to solve much of anything, you will simply take peoples money away and 1 of 3 things will happen,
1. the billionaires will be taxed out of existance and you wont have them to tax within a couple of years.
2. the billionaires will simply leave and put their money somewhere else and you still wont have them to tax.
3. the billionaires will stick around and they will continue to be billionaires and you will continue to tax them, but this is a low probability of that.
if you get taxed on the value of your stuff, how long before you have to start selling some of your stuff in order to cover your taxes? how long until you cant afford to buy new stuff because you have to cover the taxes on the stuff you still own? if you own your own home, and i tax you at 50% of your value, can you afford that hit? or do you have to sell your home to cover the 50% tax on that home?
its the half life principle, if you own $1 billion in stock, and it goes up in price to $3 billion, and i tax at 50%, you have to sell $1.5B in order to pay the tax, that also stunts the stock growth since most peopel would have to sell some of their shares to cover the tax. the following year because of the huge selloff, the stock hasnt grown or had stagnant growth, lets say it grew in price to $2 billion, and i tax half it drops you down to $1 billion. the following year you get taxed till you are below a billion and so on and so on until you have nothing. its a simplistic argument but it can be seen anywhere, for example in the housing market. right now reent prices are falling like a rock in NYC because there is a huge supply and very little demand. in 2008-09 there was a housing market crash because prices for homes dropped because there was too many homes on the market and not enough buyers, some of those homes were overvalued, but thats another topic. basi supply and demand coupled with a half life rule can be put into economics such as this. do you really thing Bezos was paid $40 billion last year by Amazon? no, it was mostly because the Amazon stock he owns trippled in price mostly fueled by covid lockdowns.
the point is, we already feed systemically chronically poor people, now lets educate them so they can feed themselves.
1