Bernie Sanders Thread

[1972 Grad]

Right.. Work for ass off while other sit and collect and complain..it's a beautiful thing

Sure. It's hard work hurting people by poking big needles in their livers and prostates, or cutting up pieces of meat, and looking at it under a microscope.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

Why should I pay for someone else college education?
In fact what about their..
Mortgage
Utilities
Job training
Child care
Healthcare

Just to name a few

I'll start by saying I'm not a Bernie supporter, I've just been interested in the guy recently (because he's so radically different than anything we've seen in a very long time).

From what I can gather, he isn't targeting the middle class (who I assume you're a part of, I apologize if not) to subsidize these things you mentioned, but rather the top earners ($1,000,000+ a year type of people, not people who are valued at $1,000,000+).

His ideas of higher marginal tax rates (in the 90% range) for these people is hard to believe, but they were that high during much of "the Great Prosperity" in the US and were highest under Eisenhower, I believe. Of course, few paid this much after exploiting every deduction and loophole they could.

Regardless, that's a hard pill to swallow, considering people believe taxing the uber rich will cause them to create fewer jobs and cause the economy to sputter (it can be argued that they actually don't create jobs as much as middle class consumers do, but that's beside the point).

However you view the man, he definitely makes things interesting.

 

[OrangeWayOfLife]

I'll start by saying I'm not a Bernie supporter, I've just been interested in the guy recently (because he's so radically different than anything we've seen in a very long time).

From what I can gather, he isn't targeting the middle class (who I assume you're a part of, I apologize if not) to subsidize these things you mentioned, but rather the top earners ($1,000,000+ a year type of people, not people who are valued at $1,000,000+).

His ideas of higher marginal tax rates (in the 90% range) for these people is hard to believe, but they were that high during much of "the Great Prosperity" in the US and were highest under Eisenhower, I believe. Of course, few paid this much after exploiting every deduction and loophole they could.

Regardless, that's a hard pill to swallow, considering people believe taxing the uber rich will cause them to create fewer jobs and cause the economy to sputter (it can be argued that they actually don't create jobs as much as middle class consumers do, but that's beside the point).

However you view the man, he definitely makes things interesting.

So guy makes 1,000,000 a year you tax him 90%. Now it's 100,000 a year. Let that sink in for minute. Does that sound American to you?

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

So guy makes 1,000,000 a year you tax him 90%. Now it's 100,000 a year. Let that sink in for minute. Does that sound American to you?

That's not how marginal tax rates work though. If you make $400,000 a year and are in a 35% tax bracket, that doesn't mean you turn over 35% of your income over to the IRS. Only the money made in excess of the $400,000 is taxed at that rate, while the rest is taxed at lower rates. Not to mention the assortment of exemptions, deductions, and credits one could take advantage of. Your effective tax rate is the percentage that actually goes to the government, and it isn't 35% or 90% in either case. And I agree, putting the marginal tax rate up to 90% is excessive, but I was just pointing out that it isn't unheard of.

Having said that, I believe income inequality does exist whether we want to admit it or not. The middle class hasn't benefited from our economic growth at or near the rate of the highest earners. And I'm an "Occupy Wall Street" person, I'm just calling a spade a spade. Whether we deserve it? I don't know. It's just fun to debate.

 

[OrangeWayOfLife]

That's not how marginal tax rates work though. If you make $400,000 a year and are in a 35% tax bracket, that doesn't mean you turn over 35% of your income over to the IRS. Only the money made in excess of the $400,000 is taxed at that rate, while the rest is taxed at lower rates. Not to mention the assortment of exemptions, deductions, and credits one could take advantage of. Your effective tax rate is the percentage that actually goes to the government, and it isn't 35% or 90% in either case. And I agree, putting the marginal tax rate up to 90% is excessive, but I was just pointing out that it isn't unheard of.

Having said that, I believe income inequality does exist whether we want to admit it or not. The middle class hasn't benefited from our economic growth at or near the rate of the highest earners. And I'm an "Occupy Wall Street" person, I'm just calling a spade a spade. Whether we deserve it? I don't know. It's just fun to debate.

The middle class doesn't see the benefits because it's so much cheaper to do business outside the US, especially anything that might involve any sort of "pollution". Quit making it beneficial to not do business here and return our jobs instead of. Hey take some of your money and hand it out to these over here who don't have as much as you do. What are the ramifications on the American Dream? Or has the American Dream now seeing how much can be mooches off the government and getting the most for nothing?

 

[Biopsyman]

I'll start by saying I'm not a Bernie supporter, I've just been interested in the guy recently (because he's so radically different than anything we've seen in a very long time).

From what I can gather, he isn't targeting the middle class (who I assume you're a part of, I apologize if not) to subsidize these things you mentioned, but rather the top earners ($1,000,000+ a year type of people, not people who are valued at $1,000,000+).

His ideas of higher marginal tax rates (in the 90% range) for these people is hard to believe, but they were that high during much of "the Great Prosperity" in the US and were highest under Eisenhower, I believe. Of course, few paid this much after exploiting every deduction and loophole they could.

Regardless, that's a hard pill to swallow, considering people believe taxing the uber rich will cause them to create fewer jobs and cause the economy to sputter (it can be argued that they actually don't create jobs as much as middle class consumers do, but that's beside the point).

However you view the man, he definitely makes things interesting.

What happens when all of the million dollar earners are taxed to middle class status.. We're does the money come from then?

 

[Biopsyman]

That's not how marginal tax rates work though. If you make $400,000 a year and are in a 35% tax bracket, that doesn't mean you turn over 35% of your income over to the IRS. Only the money made in excess of the $400,000 is taxed at that rate, while the rest is taxed at lower rates. Not to mention the assortment of exemptions, deductions, and credits one could take advantage of. Your effective tax rate is the percentage that actually goes to the government, and it isn't 35% or 90% in either case. And I agree, putting the marginal tax rate up to 90% is excessive, but I was just pointing out that it isn't unheard of.

Having said that, I believe income inequality does exist whether we want to admit it or not. The middle class hasn't benefited from our economic growth at or near the rate of the highest earners. And I'm an "Occupy Wall Street" person, I'm just calling a spade a spade. Whether we deserve it? I don't know. It's just fun to debate.

Why steal from the people who earned it in taxation? Why don't you improve your economic status and earn more money, but getting a second or third job or choose a career path that pay more

 

[Biopsyman]

That's not how marginal tax rates work though. If you make $400,000 a year and are in a 35% tax bracket, that doesn't mean you turn over 35% of your income over to the IRS. Only the money made in excess of the $400,000 is taxed at that rate, while the rest is taxed at lower rates. Not to mention the assortment of exemptions, deductions, and credits one could take advantage of. Your effective tax rate is the percentage that actually goes to the government, and it isn't 35% or 90% in either case. And I agree, putting the marginal tax rate up to 90% is excessive, but I was just pointing out that it isn't unheard of.

Having said that, I believe income inequality does exist whether we want to admit it or not. The middle class hasn't benefited from our economic growth at or near the rate of the highest earners. And I'm an "Occupy Wall Street" person, I'm just calling a spade a spade. Whether we deserve it? I don't know. It's just fun to debate.

Strive to achieve wealth rather than destroying it

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

The middle class doesn't see the benefits because it's so much cheaper to do business outside the US, especially anything that might involve any sort of "pollution". Quit making it beneficial to not do business here and return our jobs instead of. Hey take some of your money and hand it out to these over here who don't have as much as you do. What are the ramifications on the American Dream? Or has the American Dream now seeing how much can be mooches off the government and getting the most for nothing?

It's interesting that you mention the part about keeping jobs in America (something I agree with) and apparently Bernie Sanders does too.

From his campaign website: "Opposed NAFTA, CAFTA, permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with China, the TPP, and other free-trade agreements. These deals kill American jobs by shifting work overseas to nations which fail to provide worker protections and pay extremely low wages."

Bernie also is opposed to the Orthodox belief of most Democrats that we should open the borders to low skilled and low wage workers.

 

[allvol123]

Having said that, I believe income inequality does exist whether we want to admit it or not. e.

Income inequality. Perhaps as disgusting and fraudulent a phrase as you'll find in American political discussion.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

Income inequality. Perhaps as disgusting and fraudulent a phrase as you'll find in American political discussion.

It does give an icky feeling saying it, I agree haha. But even Republican candidates have acknowledged the existence of "a lack of properly dispersed wealth from a growing economy" (is that less commie sounding? Haha) over the past 40 years or so.

I'm not opposed to people gaining incredible amounts of wealth if they've worked hard for it. I'm just saying that many middle class workers haven't seen their incomes grow at the same rate as those in the upper class, in an economy that produces more goods and services yearly than the four countries behind us combined.

 

[Mac Boles]

Sanders’ Surge Shows Democrat Shift to Open Socialism

Sanders



With self-declared Socialist candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) surging ahead of fellow far-left radical Hillary Clinton in the race for the 2016 Democrat presidential nomination among New Hampshire’s crucial primary voters, the Democrat Party is now officially the acknowledged vehicle for open proponents of Big Government anti-constitutional extremism. Clearly, something major is happening here — the Democrat Party is essentially becoming the Socialist Party, while most of the GOP establishment settles for socialism lite. And except among the Republican base, some independents, and so-called “blue-dog Democrats,” much of the public seems fine with it all. That should trouble anyone who values liberty or the U.S. Constitution.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Politicians who have carelessly spent taxpayer money is why we are in a hole.

It's painful to hear someone railing about greed with the intent of voting for the guy who offers the most of other people's earnings.

I'm sure Bernie's goodies won't put us deeper in the hole.

KV should run. He is definitely transparent.

 

[BearCat204]

Having said that, I believe income inequality does exist whether we want to admit it or not. The middle class hasn't benefited from our economic growth at or near the rate of the highest earners. And I'm an "Occupy Wall Street" person, I'm just calling a spade a spade. Whether we deserve it? I don't know. It's just fun to debate.

What exactly is income inequality? I seriously dont understand the term and would like someone to honestly explain it to me. Do it mean that the person next to me should be earning as much in wage that I do? Just not sure I follow what it is. Thanks

 

[FLVOL_79]

It's interesting that you mention the part about keeping jobs in America (something I agree with) and apparently Bernie Sanders does too.

From his campaign website: "Opposed NAFTA, CAFTA, permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with China, the TPP, and other free-trade agreements. These deals kill American jobs by shifting work overseas to nations which fail to provide worker protections and pay extremely low wages."

Bernie also is opposed to the Orthodox belief of most Democrats that we should open the borders to low skilled and low wage workers.

The guy has some decent ideas but then he just goes way off the deep end. But his #Blacklivesmatters incidents show he has the spine of a fetid jellyfish.

 

[FLVOL_79]

What exactly is income inequality? I seriously dont understand the term and would like someone to honestly explain it to me. Do it mean that the person next to me should be earning as much in wage that I do? Just not sure I follow what it is. Thanks

It means that it isn't "fair" that some CEO (ignore anyone else with money) makes so much more money than you do. They didn't "work hard" but you do and you don't make anything. These are what liberals have told me.

Now these same liberals though have made a myriad of bad choices in their adult lives that led to their situation but again with a disregard for personal responsibility in this country it's way easier to point at a rich guy and blame them.

The scary part about people espousing income inequality is that you don't know where the line is drawn and I don't think liberals get that. Attack a millionaire becomes attack a half-millionaire becomes tax a one hundred thousand-aire becomes attack a guy making 60K.

Reminds me I need to go buy a new Glock today. Looking for a nice .45.:machgun: Gonna name it The Lawgiver..or LG for short. :rofl:

 

[theFallGuy]

What exactly is income inequality? I seriously dont understand the term and would like someone to honestly explain it to me. Do it mean that the person next to me should be earning as much in wage that I do? Just not sure I follow what it is. Thanks

well obviously we should all make the same amount of money regardless of personal experience, level of education, and work ethic

 

[BearCat204]

well obviously we should all make the same amount of money regardless of personal experience, level of education, and work ethic

Then why strive to further your education, work experience, show up to work on time, etc. etc. etc. Reminds me of what these two chicks said last night on TV. They were asked if WNBA players should be paid the same as NBA players and they said "yes, because they are doing the same job". I guess that explains a lot.

 

[theFallGuy]

Then why strive to further your education, work experience, show up to work on time, etc. etc. etc. Reminds me of what these two chicks said last night on TV. They were asked if WNBA players should be paid the same as NBA players and they said "yes, because they are doing the same job". I guess that explains a lot.

no education and you can make $25 an hour working at Wendy's with some "free" obamacare! Life is good

 

[FLVOL_79]

Then why strive to further your education, work experience, show up to work on time, etc. etc. etc. Reminds me of what these two chicks said last night on TV. They were asked if WNBA players should be paid the same as NBA players and they said "yes, because they are doing the same job". I guess that explains a lot.

Wow sounds like some people didn't grow up witnessing the Soviet Union in action first hand.

I work on computers so I guess I should be paid the same as Michael Dell!

 

[Kingston Vol]

That's not how marginal tax rates work though. If you make $400,000 a year and are in a 35% tax bracket, that doesn't mean you turn over 35% of your income over to the IRS. Only the money made in excess of the $400,000 is taxed at that rate, while the rest is taxed at lower rates. Not to mention the assortment of exemptions, deductions, and credits one could take advantage of. Your effective tax rate is the percentage that actually goes to the government, and it isn't 35% or 90% in either case. And I agree, putting the marginal tax rate up to 90% is excessive, but I was just pointing out that it isn't unheard of.

Having said that, I believe income inequality does exist whether we want to admit it or not. The middle class hasn't benefited from our economic growth at or near the rate of the highest earners. And I'm an "Occupy Wall Street" person, I'm just calling a spade a spade. Whether we deserve it? I don't know. It's just fun to debate.

I watched a documentary on Netflix the other day as I was cleaning, and it said our deficit has more to do with corporations not paying taxes than it does increased spending from the government. There is fat to trim, obviously, but these large corporations should pay their fair share in order to do business in the United States.

 

[McDad]

I watched a documentary on Netflix the other day as I was cleaning, and it said our deficit has more to do with corporations not paying taxes than it does increased spending from the government. There is fat to trim, obviously, but these large corporations should pay their fair share in order to do business in the United States.

It is a seductive viewpoint. Does a corporation really pay taxes? In Tennessee we have a sales tax. Are the gas stations and grocery stores paying it? No. Those business simply collect it. The customer pays the tax. Likewise, when gas and diesel costs more, we see the prices increase. All expenses are passed through to consumer and customer. I don't see how tax expense is any different.

 

[OrangeWayOfLife]

I watched a documentary on Netflix the other day as I was cleaning, and it said our deficit has more to do with corporations not paying taxes than it does increased spending from the government. There is fat to trim, obviously, but these large corporations should pay their fair share in order to do business in the United States.

Wow. There is no excuse for spending more than you bring in. The federal government is way out of control. Have you studied the ratification of the constitution and the federalist papers and what the actual role of federal government is actually supposed to be, and why so many founding fathers did not want a federal entity? Or do you take the standard liberal stance that all that is just outdated bull malarkey?

 

[Gramps]

I watched a documentary on Netflix the other day as I was cleaning, and it said our deficit has more to do with corporations not paying taxes than it does increased spending from the government. There is fat to trim, obviously, but these large corporations should pay their fair share in order to do business in the United States.

Think about what you just posted Kingston.


Corporations increase the cost of their products or service to cover the cost of any taxes they pay. This increase is passed on to the consumer. In reality, corporate taxes are no more than another tax on the American citizen that purchases the products or services of these corporations.

 

[OrangeWayOfLife]

It is a seductive viewpoint. Does a corporation really pay taxes? In Tennessee we have a sales tax. Are the gas stations and grocery stores paying it? No. Those business simply collect it. The customer pays the tax. Likewise, when gas and diesel costs more, we see the prices increase. All expenses are passed through to consumer and customer. I don't see how tax expense is any different.

There is corporate income tax, close to 40%