Bernie Sanders Thread

[Biopsyman]

And we want to bring in more unskilled workers from Mexico ... Retarded..

 

[hog88]

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.

You want to reinstate all of the available deductions and write-offs available at the time then fine, raise the top rate.

 

[BeecherVol]

Maybe you're right - but that's the game we play. Either we go for anarchy or we vote for the person who we think best represents us.

Maybe Bernie's tax plan stuff never happens and he's pushing this to gain traction, I don't know. But I know he and I share the same opinion on Global Warming, Citizens United, etc. so that's who I'm going to vote/campaign for.

I think it's important to be a part of the process - even if you don't love all of the moving parts.

Absolutely.
My opinion of the government has been cemented in the last several years as a small business owner. Things that I didn't understand 20 years ago when I entered the work force make much more sense now.

 

[TeddyYeti]

There is just no logical response to this. Your life must be terrible.

I had 3 bicycles from the time I learned to ride through college. Most kids had a new one every other year. I basically watched TV when I was young on Saturday mornings....no TV that I wanted any other time unless it was at someone else's home. I was outside building forts and getting dirty when I wasn't either doing chores or playing football. I didn't have remote control anything, no GI Joes, I had to buy my own fishing poles. We caught or dug our own bait and fished in a local mudhole. I didn't have a car until I went to college in 77. It was a very used Ford Falcon.

I look back and compare what the welfare "poor" have today and wonder how I ever got by.

The only bike I had didn't have any brakes. And I walked 4 miles to school in a blizzard every day, barefoot.

 

[82_VOL_83]

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

Businesses version of the participation trophy.

 

[82_VOL_83]

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.

Then they just won't do business here, you won't have a job, and your life will suck more than it already does.

 

[OrangeWayOfLife]

The very small corporation that my wife and I own, which follows the same set of rules as all "C" corps regardless of size, mysteriously never has any income to tax at the end of the year. Why is that?

I'm curious as why you would form a c corporation over a llc?

 

[Kingston Vol]

Is Bernie Sanders Actually Larry David? A @Seinfeld2000 Investigation | VICE | United States

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

And we want to bring in more unskilled workers from Mexico ... Retarded..

Bernie Sanders actually opposes this. And he opposes American companies moving abroad or employing abroad to make profits greater for stockholders. The dude doesn't have it all together, but there are few candidates who are on the side of the average American worker over foreign workers and corporations.

Also, there isn't anything wrong with "big business" or "big government". it is the cronyism and corporatism that makes both look bad, and thus pitting their proponents against one another.

 

[McDad]

I'm curious as why you would form a c corporation over a llc?

It was the structure that our CPA recommended based on our business and needs.

 

[Biopsyman]

Bernie Sanders actually opposes this. And he opposes American companies moving abroad or employing abroad to make profits greater for stockholders. The dude doesn't have it all together, but there are few candidates who are on the side of the average American worker over foreign workers and corporations.

Also, there isn't anything wrong with "big business" or "big government". it is the cronyism and corporatism that makes both look bad, and thus pitting their proponents against one another.

I believe is free markets.. A company should strive to maximize profits for its shareholders.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

I believe is free markets.. A company should strive to maximize profits for its shareholders.

Even at the expense of the employees who work for said business? It isn't a zero sum game (which means for one to win, the other has to lose). It is possible for CEOs to profit and benefit while paying employees at similar rates that they have achieved over the past few decades.

Employee morale and productivity are directly related. Is it safe to assume you'd gladly take a pay cut or unemployment for the CEO of your company to make some extra zeroes?

 

[BearCat204]

Even at the expense of the employees who work for said business? It isn't a zero sum game (which means for one to win, the other has to lose). It is possible for CEOs to profit and benefit while paying employees at similar rates that they have achieved over the past few decades.

Employee morale and productivity are directly related. Is it safe to assume you'd gladly take a pay cut or unemployment for the CEO of your company to make some extra zeroes?

I would go somewhere else. If employee morale and productivity are directly related, said company will cease to make such great profits.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

I would go somewhere else. If employee morale and productivity are directly related, said company will cease to make such great profits.

So in order for your CEO to have that extra zero, you'd be okay with leaving your job with them, and spending your time and effort pursuing another job?

You don't think people work harder or take pride in their job more when given incentives? There are tons of companies who have high employee morale who make incredible amounts of money and pay their employees very well (Google, for example).

 

[BearCat204]

So in order for your CEO to have that extra zero, you'd be okay with leaving your job with them, and spending your time and effort pursuing another job?

You don't think people work harder or take pride in their job more when given incentives? There are tons of companies who have high employee morale who make incredible amounts of money and pay their employees very well (Google, for example).

First and foremost, I believe that a company should be able to pay their employees what they want without the Government putting their hands in it. I agree with your second part, that's why Google gets the very best employees for the most part. It's all about free market, but some want to put that in the hands of the Government to dictate what is right.

 

[Biopsyman]

Even at the expense of the employees who work for said business? It isn't a zero sum game (which means for one to win, the other has to lose). It is possible for CEOs to profit and benefit while paying employees at similar rates that they have achieved over the past few decades.

Employee morale and productivity are directly related. Is it safe to assume you'd gladly take a pay cut or unemployment for the CEO of your company to make some extra zeroes?

I get paid exactly what I worth based on the market.

 

[Biopsyman]

Even at the expense of the employees who work for said business? It isn't a zero sum game (which means for one to win, the other has to lose). It is possible for CEOs to profit and benefit while paying employees at similar rates that they have achieved over the past few decades.

Employee morale and productivity are directly related. Is it safe to assume you'd gladly take a pay cut or unemployment for the CEO of your company to make some extra zeroes?

Company's pay a competitive salary to keep their talent.. If you feel that you are slighted, You need to have better skills that drive up your wage or go to another company.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

Company's pay a competitive salary to keep their talent.. If you feel that you are slighted, You need to have better skills that drive up your wage or go to another company.

It isn't that simple, unfortunately. Since the mid to late 1970s, the productivity of Americans has increased at a higher rate than their compensation has. Wages have stagnated, but productivity is sky high.

That's because a disproportionate amount of the profits have gone to a minority of people, and many have used that wealth to buy politicians and to rig the system in their favor. Democrats and Republicans alike.

I don't hate the rich, and I don't want their money. If you've earned a great fortune, that's awesome. Just don't say it is un-American to expect them to give back to the society that helped them get to where they are, but it is totally American for them to invest their fortunes in foreign speculations and outsourcing jobs to make shareholders more profit.

 

[theFallGuy]

It isn't that simple, unfortunately. Since the mid to late 1970s, the productivity of Americans has increased at a higher rate than their compensation has. Wages have stagnated, but productivity is sky high.

That's because a disproportionate amount of the profits have gone to a minority of people, and many have used that wealth to buy politicians and to rig the system in their favor.

I don't hate the rich, and I don't want their money. If you've earned a great fortune, that's awesome. Just don't say it is un-American to expect them to give back to the society that helped them get to where they are, but it is totally American for them to invest their fortunes in foreign speculations and outsourcing jobs to make shareholders more profit.

Giving back is a moral question though. Government should not be used to "give back". That should be a personal choice.

 

[Biopsyman]

It isn't that simple, unfortunately. Since the mid to late 1970s, the productivity of Americans has increased at a higher rate than their compensation has. Wages have stagnated, but productivity is sky high.

That's because a disproportionate amount of the profits have gone to a minority of people, and many have used that wealth to buy politicians and to rig the system in their favor. Democrats and Republicans alike.

I don't hate the rich, and I don't want their money. If you've earned a great fortune, that's awesome. Just don't say it is un-American to expect them to give back to the society that helped them get to where they are, but it is totally American for them to invest their fortunes in foreign speculations and outsourcing jobs to make shareholders more profit.

They give back by paying huge amounts in taxes..!the real discussion should be about those who take so much and contribute nothing or very little in taxes but cosume so much in resorces

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

Giving back is a moral question though. Government should not be used to "give back". That should be a personal choice.

When I talk about "giving back" I'm talking about how many of the wealthiest in our country earn great sums of their money through foreign investments, speculations, and capital gains and end up paying lower marginal tax rates than you and I. Of course, they pay more effectively, but not in proportion to what they make when compared to us.

I don't mean for the government to enter confiscatory levels of taxation, nor do I believe the government should control industries (like communists do, and socialists to a lesser extent). I mean for the government to simply play referee, but we've unfortunately reached a point where the wealthiest among us have been able to purchase government power from both sides of the aisle to achieve their goals.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

They give back by paying huge amount in taxes

Many of them really don't though. Not in proportion to what you and I pay. Take at look at Warren Buffet. He is one of the wealthiest in the world, and he will tell you he earns a lot through capital gains, and ends up paying smaller percentages than some of his employees. He and others like him can also afford the best accountants to exploit loopholes, and rest assured, they do.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Income inequality refers to the amount paid to the average worker at a corporation vs. the CEO of the organization. Of course the CEO should be and is paid more, but "rising income inequality" refers to which of these two parties' pay goes up and which one stays stagnant. (Assuming both are performing at or above average at their respective job.)

So it has nothing to do with the war on women?

 

[82_VOL_83]

The only bike I had didn't have any brakes. And I walked 4 miles to school in a blizzard every day, barefoot.

You have me beat but KV probably had to do 10 each way on one leg because of NAFTA.

 

[Kingston Vol]

So it has nothing to do with the war on women?

That's gender inequality.