I wish Erdogan

goes full Hitler and launches blitzkrieg against Europe. He would take Berlin in a month.

That would destroy the EU and wake White Europeans from their pussy slumber.

So the stupid Europeans got another Muslim terror attack? It's good to see that it's Germany this time, maybe they'll start deporting those migrants.

Enjoy your OPEN SOCIETY and TOLERANCE, hahaha. There are millions more potential terrorists and you've let them into Europe yourselves. Dumbass liberal individualists are bound to suffer.

Just this heading is already hilarious:

IMF calls for more government spending as rate cuts lose their impact

How the hell is more government spending going to create growth? And why do they want add the worse to the bad and expect to see something good out of it? It's already bad enough with those negative rates destroying people's savings, now they want more taxation?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/23/imf-calls-for-more-government-spending-as-rate-cuts-lose-their-impact

>>3
It's actually good that socialism destroys itself through economic meltdown. It would be worse for us if there were actually economically competent people there. The more insane and inadequate policy makers like Mario Draghi or Christine Lagarde, the better this whole nightmare of "EU", "IMF", "UN", "UNHCR" and the rest of it comes to end.

* the sooner this whole nightmare

>>3

How the hell is more government spending going to create growth?

It makes sense under progressive taxation schemes. The upper class tends to hoard money, so by taxing them and putting their money back into the economy for them, it stimulates economic growth.

(((EU)))
(((IMF)))
(((UN)))

>>7
The upper class cannot possibly tend to hoard money because the upper class makes its money via their investment.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/09/where-the-rich-make-their-income.html

But for those making $10 million or more, salaries and wages only account for around 15 percent of their income. Their real money comes from capital gains, with capital gains accounting for about half of their earnings.

Hence, progressive taxation is insane because it is a tax on investors which hurts growth and destroys jobs, in other words is a tax not on the richest 1%, but on the 99% really. But these socialists think that if Bill Gates or Warren Buffett makes a whole lot of money, then they must have a job contract that says "Your Salary is Going To Be: A Whole Lot Of Money". They don't get the fact that 1% didn't get rich because their pay per hour is 1000 times higher than John Doe, but because they possess assets with high market value where John Doe can get a job. By hunting the rich, they are really hurting the poor, as happened in e.g. France whose economy took a nosedive as soon as Hollande installed sky-high progressive taxes.

>>9
It doesn't matter where their money comes from, just because their income is from investment doesn't mean they invest all of heir money. If some of their income isn't reinvested, then that amount of their wealth is basically being hoarded; it just sits there, doing nothing to stimulate the economy.

It's really stupid, this view of the rich that socialists have. "Oh, they hoard all their money, let's tax them to make them invest". Why the hell would any sane wealthy man hoard money if there are attractive investment opportunities? That would go against the very qualities that made them rich. Even if there are rich people who've decided they've had enough money and don't need to invest anymore, they would still give their money back to the economy through spending (yes, a market for luxury yachts and airplanes means jobs being created by the rich). Socialists seem to believe that wealthy people are like Donald the Duck, spending their days bathing in golden coins.

If the rich people don't invest more, it means there's nowhere to invest which is the government's fault because it has overtaxed people to feed its ineffective and corrupted spending policies. Punishing rich people for the government's fault is unfair, wrong and detrimental to the economy. When the rich invest into real estate? That's the government's fault too because it overtaxed all other markets and forced the rich into this unproductive, untechnological, jobless niche which also drives up the cost of living for the common man that socialists pretend to care about.

>>10
Can you give any rational reason why 1% would hoard their money if there were lucrative investing opportunities around?
And if there are no lucrative investment oppostunities around, whose fault is it? And how are progressive taxation and government spending supposed to create investment opportunities?

The socialist view of the economy is first to strangle it with taxes, then to strangle it with more taxes, then with more and more until it breaks and economy goes into meltdown like in Venezuela.

>>10
Most of their money [i]didn't come from anywhere[i], it doesn't exist, not physically, nor on a banking account, nowhere. What they have is ownership of assets, which in turn have an estimated market price. This price can go up and down, hence rich people can "lose money" by the tens of billions:

http://fortune.com/2015/12/22/carlos-slim-billionaire/

The Mexican mogul lost a whopping $20 billion in wealth this year, Bloomberg reports, mostly due to a decrease in value of his shares in telecom company America Movil SAB.

See, he didn't lose his money because a hacker hacked his bank account or because he accidentally wrote some extra zeroes on a check. There was no "money", it's just that an asset he owns was depreciated. This asset is a company which means jobs. Like, there are John Does and Mary Janes working in that company and feeding their families etc and all because that rich guy is running their company well. That is how the 1% make money - by managing successful companies which create jobs and provide cheap and high-quality goods and services (if these companies' goods and services were shit, they wouldn't be worth so much). You want to tax the rich, you'll destroy companies which means less jobs, less competition, crappier and more expensive goods and all of that will hit the poorest 80%.

>>11,12
Donating to the poor isn't what most would regard as a "lucrative investment opportunity", since the one who donates money doesn't get much, if anything, in return. However, if that money is money which the upper class would otherwise have hoarded, donating it to the poor does benefit the economy as a whole, by increasing sales. So taxation that takes uninvested money from the rich and donates it to the poor, while not fitting most definitions of "lucrative investing opportunities" (because the "investor" gets basically negligible ROI), is something that benefits the economy overall.

>>13

Most of their money [i]didn't come from anywhere[i], it doesn't exist, not physically, nor on a banking account, nowhere. What they have is ownership of assets, which in turn have an estimated market price. This price can go up and down, hence rich people can "lose money" by the tens of billions:

And you know what? If you're worried about the value of that asset going down in the future, you can sell it in exchange for money at its current market value, and that money obviously is something that exists and is of fixed value. Of course, doing so also means that you won't benefit if the value of the asset increases AFTER you sell it, but it makes sense for one to do so with at least some of their assets, so they have something to fall back on in the unlikely event that all their assets depreciate. But having the money just sitting there in cash form (or more likely in a bank account), while beneficial to them as it protects them from unexpected changes in asset value, does not contribute to the economy in any way unless they decide to invest it in some other asset.

That is how the 1% make money - by managing successful companies which create jobs and provide cheap and high-quality goods and services (if these companies' goods and services were shit, they wouldn't be worth so much). You want to tax the rich, you'll destroy companies which means less jobs, less competition, crappier and more expensive goods and all of that will hit the poorest 80%.

Even with progressive taxation, they'll still come out far ahead of almost everyone else . They'll still have plenty of incentive to manage their companies successfully. No CEO is going to say "These new taxes cut my income from $60 million to $40 million a year, so I'll quit my position and get a job flipping burgers for $17k a year."

But giving rich people's money to the poor is a terrible waste for a host of reasons and surely doesn't create sustainable growth.

- it doesn't encourage the poor to seek education or improve their skills
- it doesn't create technological breakthroughs which means less competitiveness on the global market
- money eventually runs out or the rich people run away

>>16

- it doesn't encourage the poor to seek education or improve their skills

It does, if instead of using simple direct handouts you fund subsidized education or job training programs. Or just require that to receive welfare, all able-bodied adults must either be employed, seeking employment, or receiving education that will help them find employment.

>>17
But socialists usually just make handouts, like that Munchen shooter who grew up on Hartz IV (welfare) with no prospects in life besides shooting up people out of boredom. As someone said, the socialists in the EU managed to turn the most mobile and labor-active force, migrants, into lazy and violent parasites. I've read somewhere an account of a Somalian academic with 5 children who fled to America but found it hard to live there because he had to work, so he moved to Europe to live off welfare they pay for his children. That's what real-world socialism does to people.