Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Liberal Hivemind"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The fact is that whether it's the government or a private investor, EVERY job in existence requires someone to put up the money. That money is invested based on risk:return ratio. If you tax 90% of the profits at 90%, you're reducing the return on investment by 90%, and that makes the risk:return ratio tilts towards being more risky relative to the expected return. The "social democracies" of Europe have LOWER capital gains taxes (by far) than the USA. They get it. (for once).
The rich are always going to scheme to stay rich. When you raise capital gains taxes, they put their money into SAFE investments. They're less willing to invest in a venture that entails any kind of risk. So the innovation machine slows to a crawl. And not just innovation. "Normal" businesses will also have a tougher time getting start-up money.
The beauty of the leftist narrative is you can't point to businesses that don't exist and jobs that don't exist but WOULD exist under a less regressive (they call it "progressive") tax structure. But the leftist can always point to a few winners who benefited from the money they stole from others through taxes. "Look at all these people/businesses we helped!" People arguing against such charlatans never have a similar list of people who were HURT because of the tax policy, even though there are many times as many such people, who just didn't get a break because business and entrepreneurship were strangled. No. The leftist would argue "We could have MORE successful businesses if we taxed more and used the money to help businesses."
It's a very powerful, yet blatantly disingenuous argument that's made more effective by the fact that so many educated people BELIEVE it.
The best thing government could do is get out of the way of small business. Instead of taxing 90% of a tiny pie. Take 5% of 20 million pies!
Charge $50/month for your exclusive YouTube content and get 50 subscribers or charge $1/month and get 200,000 subscribers. It's that sort of thing. More people will want to - and be able to pay/play - if the cost is low, relative to the return.
Like I said, the rich will find a way to stay rich, regardless of the rule set. High capital gains taxes favor the already-rich over the just-want-to-improve-my-situation-without-having-to-cheat people (You know. The largest number of people this leftist pretends to care about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gulf of Tonkin, WMDs in Iraq, catastrophic global warming, RussiaGate, Covington Kids, Judge Cavanaugh, Lab Leak, Lockdowns, Jab Mandates, Ukraine, ...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not a huge fan of Trump, but at least he does some good, i.e., wants people to be free and prosperous, and LET liberty work, rather than destroying liberty to try to MAKE things better.
Politicians (and idiots) all think that if only THEY had the power, they could give better orders than the next guy, when the whole point is that the best results for everyone flow from LETTING people do as they will, restrained only by the rights of others.
Thinking you're smart enough to fix everything from on high is the stupidest, most self-serving, and arrogant thing anyone could think.
1
-
1
-
If you're a news junkie like I am, it sure looked like there was PLENTY of reason to question the 2020 election, PLENTY of things that needed to be reviewed in Arizona, Georgia, and Michigan, just to name 3 states. There were obvious, glaring discrepancies, violations of election laws, lack of integrity in chain of custody and signature verification, shenanigans in the counting rooms, ....
This was much more than just "hanging chads in Florida," when Al Gore was all butt-hurt about losing. But when it happened to a Democrat, the election wasn't certified until the questions were answered, and re-counts were done, very carefully, and in the full light of day. No such was afforded the Trump campaign. That's why he's back. They made him a living martyr, and the people love him for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I caught Fetterman's critique of the War on Drugs and his recommendation that we decriminalize narcotics. That's a pretty solid, libertarian/constitutional stance for a federal office-holder to have. I wish more held to that view, although I don't like the "It's bad for POCs" angle. Setting police against the community is bad for everybody, and whether the state has ANY say over what you put into your bloodstream. Drug cartels are human-trafficking cartels, and you only make them stronger and more brutal with the so-called War on Drugs.
Republicans should lead the way on the abolition of the War on Drugs. Police are to enforce laws protecting persons and property. I don't care if you shoot up or smoke meth or whatever you do on your own time. But if you hurt someone, or nod off on the sidewalk, or steal to support your habit, then THAT is what the police are for. You shouldn't have to confess to a crime in order to get help kicking your drug habit. And yes, if the police got out of the business of the Drug War, there would be more resources for other things. There would also be tax revenues from the legal purchase of narcotics to pay for drug rehab, counseling, etc.
Fetterman scoffs at "The Wire," but I think that show lays it all out pretty well. You can't fight the drug cartels the way we do without a lot of collateral damage to the community. Most of the gun violence in the cities is related to turf battles between drug gangs. The end of Prohibition was a MAJOR blow to organized crime. But they left the War on Drugs to keep those criminal organizations plush with cash, weapons and manpower.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1