[–] NoRagrets 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

If women are paid 70 cents on the dollar then why don't all businesses fire all the men, hire women, and save 30% on their staffing costs?

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This one always comes up but is not really that good to start off with on some people. My experience has been that folks who aren't already broken down a bit will just chalk it up to too many men still in management or the patriarchy and ignore it.

[–] ANGRY_Hippopotamus 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I always chuckle when I hear people suggesting that corporations are more interested in oppressing women than making money.

[–] Chempergrill 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

70% of all divorces are initiated by women

[–] i_scream_trucks 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

the other 30% are valid.

[–] Apexbreed 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Women commit roughly as much domestic violence as men do.

[–] Thetiedyeguy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Lesbian relationships are most violent and fags least violent.

[–] IheartSwimming 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[–] ExpertShitposter 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Women thought rape men when they cuck them into spending money on boring shit like gardens and kids instead of guns and motorcycles and liquor.

We need common sense nagging laws. Bin that tongue woman, you have no loicence.

[–] WhiteRonin 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Ask people why blacks who make up 13% of the population are over represented in shows, commercials, movies and TV.

Nothing wrong with popular actors and actresses but why do commercials have black guys and white women but not the not much the other way?

Stick to what people see daily. Let them redpoll themselves after dropping a few hints.

[–] feral-toes 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Start by undermining peoples faith in the Main Stream Media. A soft red pill is to buy an undergraduate textbook on economics, such as Principles Of Economic by Mankiw. Notice the subtlety of this attack. Mankiw is a Professor at Harvard. You aren't giving away your power level.

Look at the incidence of taxation and the deadweight burden of taxation. This is the warm up to the Laffer curve, but don't go there. Just try to assemble the facts. Your economics text book has a diagram for the deadweight burden of taxation. Supply, demand, a little triangle for the deadweight loss. Gross = Net + TaxWedge.

Tax rate is TaxWedge/Net. So if you give a shop keeper £125 and he keeps £100 and pays £25 to the government as tax, the tax rate is 25%. Notice that it is supposed to work the same way for income tax. If employing you costs your employer £125, one hundred pounds for you, twenty five pounds for the government, do the sums. The gross is £125. The net is £100. The tax wedge is £25. TaxWedge/Net = 25%

The UK government prefers to state the tax rate for income tax as pence-in-the-pound, that is TaxWedge/Gross. 25% is the same rate of taxation as twenty pence in the pound. The attraction that this has for the UK Government is that higher rates of taxation don't sound properly alarming. Eighty pence in the pound sounds like four times twenty pence in the pound. But eighty pence for UK gov means twenty pence for the worker. TaxWedge/Net is a factor of four. The tax rate is 400%.

Using pence-in-the-pound is a great way to fiddle the figures. It lets UK progressives say that tax rates for the rich are, say, four times the rate for the middle, when actually they are sixteen times the rate for the middle. Also, it plays off the confusion created by using two different calculations. Use TaxWedge/Net for VAT (VAT is a bit like sales tax). Use TaxWege/Gross for income tax. Then 80 pence-in-the-pound sounds like, and gets understood as, being the same thing as 80% VAT, when it is actually the same as 400% VAT.

The USA is much more brutal and direct about fiddling the figures. In the USA the law states that income tax, stated as a percentage, is legally defined as TaxWedge/Gross. In the UK I can state that 80 pence in the pound is really 400 percent. In the USA, Newspeak (as described in George Orwells novel 1984) is already partly in place. The wrong think "80 pence in the pound is really 400 percent" is impossible to say in American English.

But that is not the end of fiddling the figures. In the UK we have National Insurance Contributions. The USA has FICA. Notice that official language splits income tax into three parts: Income Tax, Employees contributions, Employers contributions.

This is where a blue pill person should start to realise that they are being lied to. The Harvard professor, when he is writing out of the public view, in his textbook, is perfectly clear that the incidence of taxation is determined by the elasticity of supply and demand. The labeling "Employees contributions" and "Employers contribution" is nonsense, concocted to deceive hoi polloi (American English: the rubes).

But we still want to work out the deadweight loss. Staring at the diagram in the economics textbook, we realise that we have a problem. We look at our payslip, to find out what we are paid, but we cannot work out where the payslip wage fits on the diagram. There is a point on the diagram for the money that the employer pays out, and a second point for take-home page, what we get to spend on rent and food. But the payslip wage is in between, as part of the effort to keep the so called Employers Contribution out of public view. The true wage is higher than stated on the payslip. The government has rigged things to understate true wages (propaganda point: the capitalists are underpaying you) and also to hide part of the tax wedge.

There are limits to how well the government can hide this. As the FICA page on wikipedia explains

Under the SE Tax Act, self-employed people are responsible for the entire percentage of 15.3% (= 12.4% [Soc. Sec.] + 2.9% [Medicare]); however, the 15.3% multiplier is applied to 92.35% of the business's net earnings from self-employment, rather than 100% of the gross earnings; the difference, 7.65%, is half of the 15.3%, and makes the calculation fair in comparison to that of regular (non-self-employed) employees.

We still are not ready to tackle the Laffer curve. What is the marginal rate of income tax? Usually commentators just "get deceived" by the split of income tax into three parts: Income Tax, Employees contributions, Employers contributions. They look at the marginal rate of Income Tax and go with that number. The true number is higher. Obviously Employees contributions raise the marginal rate. But there is a further, tricky computation need to get at the true number.

To compute the marginal rate, for thinking about the economics, you need to use the true wage, not the payslip wage, and include the so called Employees contribution. These two effects pull in opposite directions. The overall effect is a further rise in the marginal rate of income tax.

At last, we've got the basic facts for thinking about the Laffer curve. But before we do, stop and think about the main stream media. In the UK, come budget day, we have talking heads explaining the changes in tax rates. But they always stay within the confines of the governments chosen language. When the government says that the marginal rate of income tax is 20%, the BBC could refer to that as the governments understated figure and say "That means the the real margin rate is 25%" (or whatever, this comment is taking me too long, and I don't want to make a mistake with the tricky calculation of true wage versus payslip wage and Employers Contribution) with the supporting calculation on the BBC website.

Question the point of watching TV to see experts explain the world to you and "talk truth to power". Doing the arithmetic to get the marginal rate of income tax mathematically correct strikes me as the basic minimum. The government structures things to get the headline numbers down; a free media, sheltered by the 1st amendment, hires an account to undo the manipulation and tell the audience the unmanipulated numbers. That is the ideal. It is not what we see on TV.

Maybe that is a hard red-pill. This comment is definitely too long, so the pill must therefore be too big to swallow. On the other hand, there is nowhere for normies to hide. The government and the MSM is lying about arithmetic that you can check for yourself. Since they lie about stuff you can check with pencil and paper, how much can you trust them on stuff that you cannot check?

[–] TheSeer 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Just strike at the heart of the matter, and tell them the truth, the rich, the really rich, the wealthy, don't EVEN MAKE ANNUAL INCOME. Their WEALTH simply increases. No income, no income tax. Wealth increases, well, you MIGHT be subject to capital gains tax.

Then you factor in that they use structuring, tax avoidance (tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance is common practice) and FOUNDATIONS to further minimize how much tax the WEALTHY pay.

[–] WhiteSurvivalist 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Conformity 2 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA-gbpt7Ts8

Media 1 minute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo Media is a weapon of mass deception and conformity.

[–] TheSeer 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Mass hypnosis. Hive mind.

[–] Seventh_Jim 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

We discuss intelligence variance in breeds of dogs, horses, rabbits, and nearly any other species of domesticated social animal, with one glaring exception.

[–] Kill-Commies 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

an easy one to get somebody started on the JQ is bringing up that jews fund 50+% of the DNC.