And this is both true and not even close to be the canada

canada goose coats Found on a Fake University Video canada goose coats

uk canada goose outlet When even the Wikipedia page canada goose manchester uk lists the laffer curve as central to the theory, then we are at a point where if you believe in trickle down you are just so ill informed of economics that canada goose outlet store quebec there is nothing anyone can say to convince you.Because, the laffer curve, while not a completely useless theoretical construct, it has actually no relevance to the real world of today (or when it was concocted for that matter). It describes how at one canada goose outlet oslo point increasing taxes will decrease government income. And this is both true and not even close to be the case for any real world country, probably yet in history. cheap canada goose There are no empirical case where someone came to the tipping point of the laffer curve, where decreasing taxes actually did increase government income. And this is both true and not even close to be the canada goose outlet belgium case for any real world country, probably canada goose outlet store locations yet in history.half of it. The idea is that if canada goose outlet netherlands you set the effective income tax rate for everybody at 0%, then obviously you have no tax revenue. If you set it at 100%, then you still have no tax revenue because people will have less incentive to actually (legall) make money. So the correct tax level is at some kind of middle point. Conservatives are all about the Laffer curve when it comes to justifying tax cuts, but then get all ignorant when you say taxes can be too low. And if we going to talk about tax problems in this country, then we really gotta talk about canada goose bodywarmer uk Capital Gains too. Essentially taxes we collect from money gained from investing in stock or real estate. It how the richest of the rich make the bulk of their money, and we keep those taxes far too low. This one really Fking pisses me off because people seem to just ignore it. I get why they should be kept relatively low compared to regular income, since investing in stock is always canada goose jacket outlet uk risky. However, they top out at a 20% marginal rate at 425,000 dollars, which is too low for someone making that much.Not to mention, investing is kinda like gambling. Both in the sense that yes, there always some risk, but also in the sense that like poker, you can get really, really good at it to minimize the risk. Think people who understand how to count cards, or use statistics to dominate in online poker or fantasy sports. There are just people who know how to best use their money to buy good stock (or manipulate it value via stock buybacks).If we maybe made another 25% bracket applying to people making 400,000 dollars or more in middle and long term capital gains, then we could get a ton more money out of the top 1%.The lack of a wealth tax is a problem. The thing is, there are a lot of problems. https://www.zoetermeerinbeeld.nl Low income taxes are a problem. Low cap gains taxes are a problem. Low wealth taxes are a problem. Anyways, I heard of this Peterson fellow, heard he was a psychologist and I thought “cool, a public speaker with a Psych degree. I check him out.” Didn realize he was nuts till he started on with his conspiracy theories about academics secretly being Marxist Philosophers, or some dumb shit.Then I read he was a Jungian, and I realized his ideas are not to be taken seriously. It well established in the field that the ideas of Freud and Jung are pseudoscience. I very quickly decided not to read anything more of the man. Jung was a contemporary of Freud who initially learned from Sigmund, and then moved on, disagreeing with him on the importance of sex. (Side note, Freud had trouble finding women and thought everything had to do with sex. Jung downplayed the importance of sex, and would routinely fuck his patients. Just a funny fact).So, I going to oversimplify, but basically like Freud he believed in a conscious “ego” and an unconscious mind. But he divided the unconscious into two parts. The personal unconscious (parts of the unconscious that are unique to us) and the collective unconscious (parts of the unconscious that all humans share). The collective unconscious included things like instincts. However, it also included a bunch of silly stuff too. He strait up believed in these things called “archetypes.” Personality types hidden underneath the surface that influence behavior. For example, Jung posited (without proof) that there was a Shadow self. A dark side of your personality that one hides underneath the surface of their consciousness that canada goose sale uk ladies influences how you view others. Modern psychologists today do believe in an unconscious, but it doesn operate the way Freud or Jung thought it worked.Now, there was a point in time, specifically before the Behaviorist Movement (See: Pavlov, Skinner ect), Psychology was less of a real science and more of a Philosophy of the mind in practice. Freud and Jung would come up with ideas about the mind, and then look for evidence in their patients. The problem with this kind of confirmatory way to learning about the mind is they never held up their beliefs to any kind of empirical test. Nowadays you come up with a hypothesis, you come up with a test where if the canada goose victoria uk outcome differs from the hypothesis it disproves it, then you do the test. Jung would come up with some cockamamie idea, talk to someone, and see if anything the person said or does confirmed it or not. This is why modern day psychologists look down on him. Well. That and doing the horizontal monster mash with his female patients. “Conservative” means politics that want to conserve the status quo and halt further social progress for fear that it might break down social cohesion. “Reactionary” means politics that want society to regress to a past state, because they believe society is already on the decline. Because modern right wing politics is not based on consistency or empirical reality, many right wingers use the language of reactionary politics to refer to the desire to go back to a time that never even existed.So if you use the traditional definitions, conservative politics now includes respecting gay rights, keeping religion out of politics, keeping weed legal (at least here in Canada and in some states) and some level of government intervention in providing healthcare. Which actually does describe the politics of several young conservatives I know, who are aware enough to realize how fucking stupid old school conservatism is, but who swallowed a bunch of lies about left wing politics. Because conservatism is inherently based on the current status quo, there is no coherent ideology behind it, save for “if some aspect of society is working, it shouldn be changed, even if we know we can make it better”. But be honest, religion is a scapegoat, for a much larger scheme, a scheme of all schemes of you will, and that in my opinion is money (enter RDR2 meme here) uk canada goose outlet.