Bernie Sanders

[Dosproduction]

Everybody take a few deep breaths and remember the difference between an argument and a debate plz

Who made you the expert Oh maybe your post count LOL (purple)

 

[level.eleven]

I think that is the biggest reason people are drawn to him, especially younger voters.

This and the fact that people are shaking off the republican Stockholm syndrome. I've noticed that working Americans are waking up and realizing they have been taken through a trickle down sham.

 

[level.eleven]

I really don't care what you guys believe. It would be an uphill battle to give you a fair assessment of Bernie, his voting record, his personal stance on any number of issues, etc. Y'all are fairly predisposed to the Fox News view of the world. I'll leave it there and you can vote as you see fit.

All I am saying is he's a better individual and more ethical than Hillary ever thought of being. And no, he doesn't fit the classic definition of a socialist.

As to the point on wealth redistribution: The income tax on money transactions is significantly lower than the income tax rates on your productive labor. I'm all for a flat tax rate on income above a certain threshold. But I'm never in favor of lower tax rates on financial profits. Wall Street by and large does not increase GDP. In addition, it seems to me that in the last major recession, the government went out of their way to protect the wealthy and let homeowners twist in the wind. So, yeah, wealth redistribution occurred, and continues to occur.

It isn't the guy on food stamps who's the biggest enemy to democracy. It is the plutocrat.

These folks think Any Rand had good ideas.

Ultimate echo chamber.

 

[level.eleven]

I really don't care what you guys believe. It would be an uphill battle to give you a fair assessment of Bernie, his voting record, his personal stance on any number of issues, etc. Y'all are fairly predisposed to the Fox News view of the world. I'll leave it there and you can vote as you see fit.

All I am saying is he's a better individual and more ethical than Hillary ever thought of being. And no, he doesn't fit the classic definition of a socialist.

As to the point on wealth redistribution: The income tax on money transactions is significantly lower than the income tax rates on your productive labor. I'm all for a flat tax rate on income above a certain threshold. But I'm never in favor of lower tax rates on financial profits. Wall Street by and large does not increase GDP. In addition, it seems to me that in the last major recession, the government went out of their way to protect the wealthy and let homeowners twist in the wind. So, yeah, wealth redistribution occurred, and continues to occur.

It isn't the guy on food stamps who's the biggest enemy to democracy. It is the plutocrat.

You haven't felt the trickle down yet. Give it a couple more presidencies.

 

[Alpo]

The trickle I feel is someone peeing on my leg. Never let a republican stand next to you in the men's room. They are cut on the bias.

 

[MCgrease08]

I would say it swung left. That is the issue the Republicans are now democrats and the democrats are socialist. There is no more Right till you get to the libertarians

I think the voters and the general public swung to the left left more so than the politicians.

 

[BugI02]

Who made you the expert Oh maybe your post count LOL (purple)

You wound me to the core, sir! Oh the humanity! (a really nice shade of Malbec-like purple)

 

[Bfish]

All I can say about Bernie Sanders is ... He's as bad and in many ways worse than Hilary. I really don't see how they can be favorites! Jim Webb is the best candidate that they have IMO.

 

[amboy49]

I really don't care what you guys believe. It would be an uphill battle to give you a fair assessment of Bernie, his voting record, his personal stance on any number of issues, etc. Y'all are fairly predisposed to the Fox News view of the world. I'll leave it there and you can vote as you see fit.

All I am saying is he's a better individual and more ethical than Hillary ever thought of being. And no, he doesn't fit the classic definition of a socialist.

As to your point on wealth redistribution: "The income tax on money transactions is significantly lower than the income tax rates on your productive labor. I'm all for a flat tax rate on income above a certain threshold. But I'm never in favor of lower tax rates on financial profits. Wall Street by and large does not increase GDP. In addition, it seems to me that in the last major recession, the government went out of their way to protect the wealthy and let homeowners twist in the wind. So, yeah, wealth redistribution occurred, and continues to occur."

It isn't the guy on food stamps who's the biggest enemy to democracy. It is the plutocrat.

I've always been curious about folks who espouse the theory that capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate than "earned income." i.e. The grief Romney took about his reported 15% effective tax rate. I am far from being a Wall Street insider but I have managed to accumulate some wealth based on using a theory of minimal debt and aggressive 401k contributions. As a result, I have funds that are invested in various areas not the least of which include mutual funds, stocks, etc.

If I understand what you are saying, you feel I should pay a high(er)rate of capital gains tax when I sell a stock at a profit. In essence, paying a tax on money I've already paid a previous tax on. My effective rate over the past several years has been approximately 15%. Based on your comments am I to assume you feel this effective rate should be higher if I am not earning income from my physical labor or intellectual property ?

Do you also support the theory of an inheritance tax ?

 

[rambone]

"You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country." -- Bernie Sanders

 

[Alpo]

Is a hedge fund manager's $1 worth more than a ditch digger's $1? Or an insurance salesman? I don't think so. Yet his earnings are taxed at a much lower rate, compounded by the fact that his earnings are based on wealth that he does not own. Quite the scheme when you think about it.

As to your 401k, you pay no taxes now. And that plan is available to virtually everyone. Fairly democratic in its appeal.

Capital gains taxation benefits were an instrument used to improve the liquidity of the market. But, most of the gains no longer result from the funding of new businesses. So, capital formation has taken a back seat to more esoteric instruments such as derivatives. Should a money on money transaction be treated better than an hour put in slinging fries at McDonalds? I don't think so. If you do, we will never reach a compromise position. It is one of the reasons that wealth has moved into the hands of the non-productive members of society. And by that I mean the non-working rich.

Do I believe in inheritance taxes? Yes, at some level. It clearly is confiscation and that sounds wrong....but the person could have put that wealth to use in some other manner before death, and he would have had a choice how it was distributed. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would agree.

 

[JTScribe]

Is a hedge fund manager's $1 worth more than a ditch digger's $1? Or an insurance salesman? I don't think so. Yet his earnings are taxed at a much lower rate, compounded by the fact that his earnings are based on wealth that he does not own. Quite the scheme when you think about it.

As to your 401k, you pay no taxes now. And that plan is available to virtually everyone. Fairly democratic in its appeal.

Capital gains taxation benefits were an instrument used to improve the liquidity of the market. But, most of the gains no longer result from the funding of new businesses. So, capital formation has taken a back seat to more esoteric instruments such as derivatives. Should a money on money transaction be treated better than an hour put in slinging fries at McDonalds? I don't think so. If you do, we will never reach a compromise position. It is one of the reasons that wealth has moved into the hands of the non-productive members of society. And by that I mean the non-working rich.

Do I believe in inheritance taxes? Yes, at some level. It clearly is confiscation and that sounds wrong....but the person could have put that wealth to use in some other manner before death, and he would have had a choice how it was distributed. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would agree.

The rate on capital gains is lower because it's generally recognized that there is a far greater risk in that sort of income than in an hourly wage. Additionally, the initial money came from somewhere, they didn't just create it out of thin air. At some point it was someone's income, so capital gains are essentially double taxation.

As far as inheritance taxes go, they are, in my opinion, un-American. If Bill Gates doesn't want to give his kids his money when he dies, that's his prerogative. My brother-in-law should be able to leave his farm to his kids without them having to sell it off to pay the taxes. I should be able to leave my house to my kids, or any money I have saved up for them, without the government swooping in for a cut of something they've already taxed. And honestly, as you point out, smart people will divest themselves of assets before they die so as to avoid that sort of thing happening, if they're smart and have the resources. Inheritance taxes are a Federal jobs program for lawyers and accountants . . .

 

[amboy49]

Is a hedge fund manager's $1 worth more than a ditch digger's $1? Or an insurance salesman? I don't think so. Yet his earnings are taxed at a much lower rate, compounded by the fact that his earnings are based on wealth that he does not own. Quite the scheme when you think about it.

As to your 401k, you pay no taxes now. And that plan is available to virtually everyone. Fairly democratic in its appeal.

Capital gains taxation benefits were an instrument used to improve the liquidity of the market. But, most of the gains no longer result from the funding of new businesses. So, capital formation has taken a back seat to more esoteric instruments such as derivatives. Should a money on money transaction be treated better than an hour put in slinging fries at McDonalds? I don't think so. If you do, we will never reach a compromise position. It is one of the reasons that wealth has moved into the hands of the non-productive members of society. And by that I mean the non-working rich.

Do I believe in inheritance taxes? Yes, at some level. It clearly is confiscation and that sounds wrong....but the person could have put that wealth to use in some other manner before death, and he would have had a choice how it was distributed. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would agree.

just a couple of follow questions then.
Are you suggesting that most people who are paid minimum wage working at McDonalds are paying a higher income tax rate ? I doubt they are actually paying any income at all.

Secondly, with your belief that someone should "put that wealth to use in some other manner" before their death - who decides the what that use actually is ? For the life of me, the inheritance tax is the truest example of wealth redistribution I can think of. Take away capital from those who have already paid taxes on those assets ( regardless of the tax rate ) and provide to the populace in the form of various government programs.

Essentially what you are saying then is that the government has the "right" to legislate not just taxation, but the morality of various lifestyles. This legislative process in our republic continues to get more out of hand each and every election cycle in my opinion. Voting for a self described socialist like Sanders will do nothing to reverse our present national course.

He and Trump both make for good newspaper/magazine and nightly TV news segments - but have no chance of actually gaining mainstream support. Of course my crystal ball in 2008 didn't show the first half black half white man being elected either.

 

[Designer99]

I would not dispute that what Scandinavia has is "social". The "responsibility" part is a matter of opinion, and so is the "democracy" part, unless you're talking the kind that is tyranny of the majority. So call it what it is. Socialism lite.

I would also classify police, fire departments, schools, public parks and paved roads as socialism lite.

 

[Alpo]

Amboy49: Do you believe in royalty? At a certain point, the successful laborer becomes a rentier and stops working and begins acquiring. Should that acquisition paradigm continue forever? It was one thing when it was a family farm and we were an agrarian people. Inheritance of the land for future production assured that future production.

But, we aren't talking about land. We are speaking of the rentier class. As that group controls more of the wealth of the nation, they affect and significantly (overwhelmingly) influence the political structure of the nation. Does one man/one vote apply to Koch? Does he have the same voice in the destiny of this country as you do? And, should he/they pass that control on to their children?

There is clearly a level of gullibility that you appear to accept that has become mixed up in your idea of free men of common destiny.

 

[Alpo]

just a couple of follow questions then.
Are you suggesting that most people who are paid minimum wage working at McDonalds are paying a higher income tax rate ? I doubt they are actually paying any income at all.

Secondly, with your belief that someone should "put that wealth to use in some other manner" before their death - who decides the what that use actually is ? For the life of me, the inheritance tax is the truest example of wealth redistribution I can think of. Take away capital from those who have already paid taxes on those assets ( regardless of the tax rate ) and provide to the populace in the form of various government programs.

Essentially what you are saying then is that the government has the "right" to legislate not just taxation, but the morality of various lifestyles. This legislative process in our republic continues to get more out of hand each and every election cycle in my opinion. Voting for a self described socialist like Sanders will do nothing to reverse our present national course.

He and Trump both make for good newspaper/magazine and nightly TV news segments - but have no chance of actually gaining mainstream support. Of course my crystal ball in 2008 didn't show the first half black half white man being elected either.

McDonalds might be an absurd example, and if you debate that absurdity, you're wasting your time. If you truly don't understand the point, I'll rephrase. But, I think you do understand it.

See my point on "royalty" for a response to your second point.

If you are talking about "lifestyle" as wealth as opposed to gender identity, then I do have concerns about the concentration of wealth and political muscle in a small group of individuals. I think that is contrary to what our country was established in opposition to. Will there be a point where you or your children own "nothing" because it is in the hands of a few? Our worst nightmares come home to roost. Science fiction made fact.

 

[Designer99]

All that a Scandinavian style socialist requires is uncontested power, then they turn into Red Square (aka communist) socialists.
Please, don't try and dress up a hog as a supermodel.

Well, they've been doing their thing since the 1930's. It's been 80+ years and your armchair prediction hasn't happened yet. But you're right. It might happen at any time so let's be on the lookout for those commies, Mcarthy!

 

[CTS]

Bernie vs Hillary vs Jeb...

View attachment 39875

As if those are our only options?

They're the three leading democrats.

 

[JTScribe]

McDonalds might be an absurd example, and if you debate that absurdity, you're wasting your time. If you truly don't understand the point, I'll rephrase. But, I think you do understand it.

See my point on "royalty" for a response to your second point.

If you are talking about "lifestyle" as wealth as opposed to gender identity, then I do have concerns about the concentration of wealth and political muscle in a small group of individuals. I think that is contrary to what our country was established in opposition to. Will there be a point where you or your children own "nothing" because it is in the hands of a few? Our worst nightmares come home to roost. Science fiction made fact.

Not science fiction at all. A very old story in point of fact. Historically speaking Feudalism didn't end well for the lords and ladies. Maybe that's why our elites today are so vociferous on the topic of gun control. As the saying goes, it's difficult to lord your position over a peasant from the saddle when he can shoot you out of it with a long bow.

 

[jamil]

Is a hedge fund manager's $1 worth more than a ditch digger's $1? Or an insurance salesman? I don't think so. Yet his earnings are taxed at a much lower rate, compounded by the fact that his earnings are based on wealth that he does not own. Quite the scheme when you think about it.

As to your 401k, you pay no taxes now. And that plan is available to virtually everyone. Fairly democratic in its appeal.

Capital gains taxation benefits were an instrument used to improve the liquidity of the market. But, most of the gains no longer result from the funding of new businesses. So, capital formation has taken a back seat to more esoteric instruments such as derivatives. Should a money on money transaction be treated better than an hour put in slinging fries at McDonalds? I don't think so. If you do, we will never reach a compromise position. It is one of the reasons that wealth has moved into the hands of the non-productive members of society. And by that I mean the non-working rich.

Do I believe in inheritance taxes? Yes, at some level. It clearly is confiscation and that sounds wrong....but the person could have put that wealth to use in some other manner before death, and he would have had a choice how it was distributed. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would agree.

Sigh. A dollar earned by a hedge fund manager is worth one dollar. A dollar earned by a ditch digger? Yep. One dollar. Granted, that dollar is much more valuable to a ditch digger because it took him much longer to earn it.

But to you? It's not your dollar to spend. It has no value for you, except what the guy puts back into the economy, and pays in taxes. And the hedge fund guy puts a **** ton more into both. As for the morality of it, I can't assign moral value to money. Money is worth its face value. I can assign moral value to behavior. At least we probably both agree that immoral behavior has a cost.

I'm astonished about your views on inheritance tax. So the government should confiscate some inheritance just in case the dead person would have donated it to charity. WTF? Bernie Sanders? Are you Bernie Sanders?

I would also classify police, fire departments, schools, public parks and paved roads as socialism lite.

There's a huge difference between providing a few core common services and saying that everyone has a right to "free" health care. And if you think that what we have here is socialism lite, you surely believe what Scandinavian countries have and what Bernie Sanders wants is much more than our socialism-lite.

We've "compromised" our way to this much socialism and $18 trillion in debt. I think we've had a bit too much all ready.