Avatar suggestion for MC

[Spartanmack]

proposing a marginal tax increase on wealthy/top percent (at rates which would still be lower than they were in the 60's & 70's) & treating carried interest income as regular income is robbery...

Except for carried interest (I'm all for reforming carried interest rules), yes it is. It was stealing then and its stealing now.

By the way, does he have any other great ideas to bring back from the 70s? Runaway inflation perhaps? making big labor strong again and driving more jobs overseas?

 

[Spartanmack]

Not as shocking as Communism, Socialism, and 'Too old'. Some people would actually probably look at this as a compliment.

That's my point - I'm surprised the fools that don't realize what a disaster his policies would be and are dumb enough to actually support him haven't drawn the comparison and promoted him as a modern day, septuagenarian Robin Hood.

 

[Michchamp]

That's my point - I'm surprised the fools that don't realize what a disaster his policies would be and are dumb enough to actually support him haven't drawn the comparison and promoted him as a modern day, septuagenarian Robin Hood.

higher taxes on the 1%, and higher estate taxes weren't bad policy from the 40's to the 70's/80's and wouldn't be now.

fund social programs & education so that every American gets a better shot at college and a meaningful career, regardless of their parent's income and wealth.

 

[Spartanmack]

I admire your patience in repeatedly explaining such a simple thing. It's hard enough repeating myself to my 4 year old son, I don't have time to do it to adults too

Is it really that simple? Do you think people don't realize that tax rates were much higher in the past? Do you not realize that although they are lower today, they are still too high? Do you also not realize that those extremely high rates were meaningless and not a valid comparison to today's rates because almost nobody paid them, including many super rich taxpayers because of all the exemptions and loopholes - loopholes that Reagan got rid of when he cut rates in he 80s? Perhaps what you don't realize is that we don't have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem.

Of course you don't because that would require more than just looking at two numbers and drawing a conclusion - or should I say being shown 2 numbers and saying "yeah, that makes sense" because questioning things is hard. I get why a 4 year old could fall for this nonsense but it still amazes me that so few adults actually try to question or validate what they hear - I don't know why, but it does still amaze me.

 

[Spartanmack]

higher taxes on the 1%, and higher estate taxes weren't bad policy from the 40's to the 70's/80's and wouldn't be now.

fund social programs & education so that every American gets a better shot at college and a meaningful career, regardless of their parent's income and wealth.

higher estate taxes were and are a disaster. College for everyone is also a disaster - this attitude, artificially low interest rates and feckless administrators (99.9% leftists) have driven tuition costs through the roof. The answer isn't redistributing wealth - the answer is real reform to bring down costs. And you don't need college to have a meaningful career - you of all people, who pretend to support the American worker but really support disastrous, corrupt big labor, should know that.

 

[tomdalton22]

higher estate taxes were and are a disaster. College for everyone is also a disaster - this attitude, artificially low interest rates and feckless administrators (99.9% leftists) have driven tuition costs through the roof. The answer isn't redistributing wealth - the answer is real reform to bring down costs. And you don't need college to have a meaningful career - you of all people, who pretend to support the American worker but really support disastrous, corrupt big labor, should know that.

Danny Noonan: I planned to go to law school after I graduated, but it looks like my folks won't have enough money to put me through college.
Judge Smails: Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too.

 

[Spartanmack]

Danny Noonan: I planned to go to law school after I graduated, but it looks like my folks won't have enough money to put me through college.
Judge Smails: Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too.

It does indeed, but it doesn't need $30/hour with full medical, dental and vision benefits, paid sick leave, paid vacation, 4 months paid family leave, 80%+ pension upon retirement at 55 ditch diggers.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The government brought in $3 trillion in tax revenue in 2014. That's $9,375 for every man woman and child. GDP per capita is $53,000. So, if the budget was balanced, government activity would make up about 18% of the economy. That's plenty for peacetime. Taxes are high enough. We just need to avoid wars and spend it on infrastructure.

The wealthiest 0.01% own 11.2% of the wealth. That's 3.2 million people that have the economic influence of an average 1120 people. That alone doesn't seem democracy-breaking to me. The wealthiest 400 people in the nation have 2.75% of the trackable wealth. So that's 400 people with the wealth of an average 2.2 million people. That seems a bit wild. But the real problem is the bottom 50% only having only 1.1 percent. That seems way out of line. Enough to justify some targeted tax law changes like this carried interest issue. But I'm not convinced tax law is the problem.

I still vote for more spending on infrastructure. I think that would be a step in the right direction.

 

[sggatecl]

Is it really that simple? Do you think people don't realize that tax rates were much higher in the past? Do you not realize that although they are lower today, they are still too high? Do you also not realize that those extremely high rates were meaningless and not a valid comparison to today's rates because almost nobody paid them, including many super rich taxpayers because of all the exemptions and loopholes - loopholes that Reagan got rid of when he cut rates in he 80s? Perhaps what you don't realize is that we don't have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem.

Of course you don't because that would require more than just looking at two numbers and drawing a conclusion - or should I say being shown 2 numbers and saying "yeah, that makes sense" because questioning things is hard. I get why a 4 year old could fall for this nonsense but it still amazes me that so few adults actually try to question or validate what they hear - I don't know why, but it does still amaze me.

I can only speak for myself. And in our household, I don't think we've ever complained once about taxes. Own a house, two cars, etc. My biggest concerns financially every year are healthcare and education. Something that every other politician seems to shit on when it comes to saving money. I don't mind paying more taxes than I do now, I just want them going to places that I deem most necessary (education, infrastrucure/transportation, health care).

If you or anyone else thinks that lower taxes are the answer to everything, more power to you. Just know that as unrealistic as you and others like to call Bernie's ideas, the notion that one of the other candidates is going to not only reign in spending but ALSO lower taxes seems laughable to me.

 

[sggatecl]

The government brought in $3 trillion in tax revenue in 2014. That's $9,375 for every man woman and child. GDP per capita is $53,000. So, if the budget was balanced, government activity would make up about 18% of the economy. That's plenty for peacetime. Taxes are high enough. We just need to avoid wars and spend it on infrastructure.

The wealthiest 0.01% own 11.2% of the wealth. That's 3.2 million people that have the economic influence of an average 1120 people. That alone doesn't seem democracy-breaking to me. The wealthiest 400 people in the nation have 2.75% of the trackable wealth. So that's 400 people with the wealth of an average 2.2 million people. That seems a bit wild. But the real problem is the bottom 50% only having only 1.1 percent. That seems way out of line. Enough to justify some targeted tax law changes like this carried interest issue. But I'm not convinced tax law is the problem.

I still vote for more spending on infrastructure. I think that would be a step in the right direction.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Michchamp]

higher estate taxes were and are a disaster. College for everyone is also a disaster - this attitude, artificially low interest rates and feckless administrators (99.9% leftists) have driven tuition costs through the roof. The answer isn't redistributing wealth - the answer is real reform to bring down costs. And you don't need college to have a meaningful career - you of all people, who pretend to support the American worker but really support disastrous, corrupt big labor, should know that.

how were higher estate taxes a disaster? I mean, I know the Waltons, Kochs, Hearsts, DuPonts, Rockefellers, and their ilk didn't like them. but are there any objective reasons for this?

also not sure why you're bringing up the high inflation of the 70's, as it had nothing to do with tax rates.

there were also shocks in prices due to the OPEC oil embargo at the time. I guess you think Bernie Sanders wants to bring back OPEC oil embargoes as well?

 

[tinselwolverine]

My biggest fear of Sanders is that he'll try to bring back this

from the 70s.

 

[Spartanmack]

how were higher estate taxes a disaster? I mean, I know the Waltons, Kochs, Hearsts, DuPonts, Rockefellers, and their ilk didn't like them. but are there any objective reasons for this?

also not sure why you're bringing up the high inflation of the 70's, as it had nothing to do with tax rates.

there were also shocks in prices due to the OPEC oil embargo at the time. I guess you think Bernie Sanders wants to bring back OPEC oil embargoes as well?

the estate tax doesn't only hit the uber wealthy. It forces a lot of families to sell businesses when a founder dies in order to pay the estate taxes on a business that has already been taxed. It's double taxation and it's wrong - just because a person is dead, doesn't mean he/she forfeits the rights to his/her property to the government no matter how badly you think the government needs it. I've heard your twisted "meritocracy" argument against inherited wealth already - it's ridiculous and baseless to say the government has more rights to someone's property than the people or institutions he or she wants to leave it to.

I don't doubt that you don't know why I brought up high inflation or that you think I brought it up because I think it has something to do with tax rates - very few things you say surprise me anymore. I thought it was obvious that I was saying there were a number of bad ideas and outcomes in the 70s, higher taxes being one of them and bringing them back isn't necessarily a good idea - but I should have realized who my audience was and been more explicit.

 

[Spartanmack]

I can only speak for myself. And in our household, I don't think we've ever complained once about taxes. Own a house, two cars, etc. My biggest concerns financially every year are healthcare and education. Something that every other politician seems to shit on when it comes to saving money. I don't mind paying more taxes than I do now, I just want them going to places that I deem most necessary (education, infrastrucure/transportation, health care).

If you or anyone else thinks that lower taxes are the answer to everything, more power to you. Just know that as unrealistic as you and others like to call Bernie's ideas, the notion that one of the other candidates is going to not only reign in spending but ALSO lower taxes seems laughable to me.

you're clearly not paying attention. I think the answers are primarily less spending, smaller, less intrusive government and yes, less taxes.

 

[sggatecl]

you're clearly not paying attention. I think the answers are primarily less spending, smaller, less intrusive government and yes, less taxes.

Can't stay out of wars or conflicts. There goes a third of your solution.

 

[sggatecl]

My biggest fear of Sanders is that he'll try to bring back this

from the 70s.

Don't be so selfish. Some of us were too young or not yet born to witness the glory that was Disco Fever.

 

[grandy]

 

[tinselwolverine]

Don't be so selfish. Some of us were too young or not yet born to witness the glory that was Disco Fever.

The OPEC oil embargo and the Watergate scandal were less painful than disco fever.

 

[Spartanmack]

The OPEC oil embargo and the Watergate scandal were less painful than disco fever.

were you a D.R.E.A.D. card holder? I was. I hated disco at the time but have come to appreciate it for what it was. I was too young to see Saturday Night Fever then, but I remember the controversy it stirred. Having seen it as an adult in the context of almost 40 years of evolution in film, it seems kind of tame.

 

[Michchamp]

the estate tax doesn't only hit the uber wealthy. It forces a lot of families to sell businesses when a founder dies in order to pay the estate taxes on a business that has already been taxed. It's double taxation and it's wrong - just because a person is dead, doesn't mean he/she forfeits the rights to his/her property to the government no matter how badly you think the government needs it. I've heard your twisted "meritocracy" argument against inherited wealth already - it's ridiculous and baseless to say the government has more rights to someone's property than the people or institutions he or she wants to leave it to.

I don't doubt that you don't know why I brought up high inflation or that you think I brought it up because I think it has something to do with tax rates - very few things you say surprise me anymore. I thought it was obvious that I was saying there were a number of bad ideas and outcomes in the 70s, higher taxes being one of them and bringing them back isn't necessarily a good idea - but I should have realized who my audience was and been more explicit.

okay, so estate taxes pretty much only hit the wealthy. are you really going to argue this?

I think I've said before there should be exceptions for family business, farms, etc.

you can find the IRS summary very easily. now we only tax estates OVER $1,500,000, and there ARE exceptions for family businesses and farms. it goes without saying though these exceptions should be qualified and heavily scrutinized to prevent them from becoming loopholes for idle wealth.

I don't understand why or how anyone who purports to be in favor of the free market and unbridled capitalism supports defending this property right to such extremes; allowing billions of dollars to be tied up in trust funds for kids and grandkids means that money isn't going to any productive use. and it's permitting the establishment of a permanent aristocracy among certain families.