How much is your local "Trump at the Pump Tax?"

How well has it worked to look at any effort to regulate abuses by unprincipled players under capitalism, and paint it as "confiscation!" and "government control!" ?

 

"Abuse" (not paying Gavin newsom's $25/hr wage to flip burgers) is often the eye of the beholder. Those wages are passed on as higher burger prices & drive customers away & shut the Burger Joint down in many instances. Shopkeeper moves out of jurisdiction of stupidity and then is able to put other people to work that pay taxes in their state

 

Just another facet of the housing shortage.

Even at $25/hr suggests they should be paying no more than $1170/mo for rent, and you just don't see apartments (or shares thereof) that cheap anymore. Even Bakersfield is higher than that these days.

The way to cheaper burger flippers is more available housing and lower rent.

 

Pretty close to that, nowhere in the tax cut for the rich does it say there has to be customers, just be rich. Have you heard customers are the job creators from a republican? We want tax cuts for the rich because “they are the job creators” is nothing but a lie. There are already tons of tax cuts for business, too many. The NOL term is like twenty years now. It started out as one or two years to enable some tax relief from losses.

 

In other words, you've never heard anyone claim that a business with no customers is an excellent engine of job growth. If you heard a proposal for reduced taxation as stimulus and only "just be rich" got through, you might question whether you got the whole message.

If you were to borrow the capital to start a business relying on "tax cuts for the rich", but no one bought your goods or services, how would you ever see a benefit from that?

No, but that also wouldn't be true. A demand for lemonade doesn't itself create the chain of growers, transport and retail facilities that allow anyone to sell lemonade. It isn't the customers who plant and maintain the orchards, and invest in the equipment and labor to pick and transport.

I have certainly heard republicans extol the demand side effects of reduced income taxation. Consumers with a reduced tax burden have more money to spend on consumption. This has been a message from republican candidates since Kemp-Roth.

It also isn't a faithful rendition of the position, which would actually be something more like We don't want to overtax innovators and investors who bring large social and economic benefits, including employment which is all reasonable and true.

Not taxing businesses with a net operating loss isn't a tax cut. Bringing anger and misunderstanding into a discussion of economics helps no one, but does re-enforce a stereotype about Prius drivers.

 

you are about 60 years out of date.

Many business models that should be illegal survive on just what you describe, getting investment in a business that makes no money while you yourself get rich.

Back in the 80’s one of our fearless leaders got rich off a string of business failures.
Other leaders got wealthy off the savings and loan failures.
Sun capital got wealthy off Shopko by using it to take out large loans to pay themselves exorbitant unearned salaries . Usurpury but it’s ok because they are an investor.

 

So, not reliant on "tax cuts for the rich".

 

Those 'failures' were usually only on portions of his total business operation. The most publicly visible portion, sharing business risks with 'partners'.

His other portions were kept to himself and family, not shared with partners, and were structured to extract plenty of profit from their dealings with the shared portions. I.e. share the risks of losses, but don't share the highest and most certain profit potentials. And make sure his closely held profits on the private internal side, exceeded his slice of the losses on the partnered external side.

Thus, his overall personal business were relatively successful (though less so than the overall stock market). While his partners were left holding the bags.

I was not anywhere near among the first to see that partnering with him was financially foolish. There was a reason why, in the 1990s, he could no longer get financing from domestic sources, so had to turn overseas to other 'lenders' or 'partners' with motives other than simple profit.