Politics Democratic Socialism

[SlyPokerDog]

Sanders wants a 90% tax rate, it's well documented.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/bernie-sanders-asks-if-american-economy-moral-n364541

Not to the average citizen, to the top 1%.

"Ninety-nine percent of all new income generated today goes to the top 1 percent. The top one-tenth of 1 percent owns as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Does anybody think this is the kind of economy we should have. Do we think it's moral?"

 

[julius]

That doesn't prove anything. He's talking about a very small % of the country (of which, you nor anyone who has ever posted on this board or ever will, belongs to) paying that amount on money made above a certain amount.

Try to actually listen to the videos you link and read the articles, instead of just doing a search for shit on youtube or google and reading the headlines/titles.

 

[magnifier661]

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-details-tax-plan
Bernie wants to Increase capital gains to 39.6% for all. The current capital gains is 20% for upper 30% income and 15% lower

Anyone selling their homes or stocks will pay 19.6-24.6% more taxes. So just don't sell your homes

 

[magnifier661]

Not to the average citizen, to the top 1%.

"Ninety-nine percent of all new income generated today goes to the top 1 percent. The top one-tenth of 1 percent owns as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Does anybody think this is the kind of economy we should have. Do we think it's moral?"

If he wants to increase capital gains to 39.6%, that is increasing taxes across the board.

Also, if you look at his detailed tax plan, there are subsidies he is taking out that effects everyone on their write offs.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not to the average citizen, to the top 1%.

"Ninety-nine percent of all new income generated today goes to the top 1 percent. The top one-tenth of 1 percent owns as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Does anybody think this is the kind of economy we should have. Do we think it's moral?"

I think you are misusing statistics.

There is no free lunch. A 90% tax rate on Bill Gates would have netted the government $900K when he was CEO of Microsoft.

If the government is going to spend $8T instead of $4T, everyone will see their taxes double. No matter how progressive the tax brackets are.

The 74% top tax bracket in the Carter years didn't give us a surplus, or pay for a single thing Sanders deems "good" for the collective.

 

[magnifier661]

I think you are misusing statistics.

There is no free lunch. A 90% tax rate on Bill Gates would have netted the government $900K when he was CEO of Microsoft.

If the government is going to spend $8T instead of $4T, everyone will see their taxes double. No matter how progressive the tax brackets are.

The 74% top tax bracket in the Carter years didn't give us a surplus, or pay for a single thing Sanders deems "good" for the collective.

Exactly... The average per citizen would triple.

 

[Denny Crane]

Exactly... The average per citizen would triple.

Double.

 

[magnifier661]

Double.

But isn't that on the current budget? I would think implementing even more welfare, it would at least go up to triple wouldn't it?

 

[Denny Crane]

But isn't that on the current budget? I would think implementing even more welfare, it would at least go up to triple wouldn't it?

Spend $4T now, 25% of gdp (federal portion). To spend 50% of gdp, they'd spend $8T, or double.

To spend double, they need to tax double or borrow $4T a year (not possible), or print $4T in new money.

 

[magnifier661]

Spend $4T now, 25% of gdp (federal portion). To spend 50% of gdp, they'd spend $8T, or double.

To spend double, they need to tax double or borrow $4T a year (not possible), or print $4T in new money.

Ahhhh okay I get it

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I think you are misusing statistics.

There is no free lunch. A 90% tax rate on Bill Gates would have netted the government $900K when he was CEO of Microsoft.

If the government is going to spend $8T instead of $4T, everyone will see their taxes double. No matter how progressive the tax brackets are.

The 74% top tax bracket in the Carter years didn't give us a surplus, or pay for a single thing Sanders deems "good" for the collective.

I didn't misuse anything, I explained the statement you made.

"Sanders wants a 90% tax rate, it's well documented."

That was vague and not accurate.


Listen Mags and Denny, I'm not defending Sanders. I do like him being in the race. He has brought important issues into the presidential discussion. So has Trump.

All I'm saying is lets talk about the specific issues they are campaigning on instead of the weird shit your pants rhetoric.


I am relieved that some in here have learned the difference between communism, socialism and democratic socialism. That is actually a huge step forward in discussing who these candidates are and the issues they are running on.

 

[magnifier661]

I didn't misuse anything, I explained the statement you made.

"Sanders wants a 90% tax rate, it's well documented."

That was vague and not accurate.


Listen Mags and Denny, I'm not defending Sanders. I do like him being in the race. He has brought important issues into the presidential discussion. So has Trump.

All I'm saying is lets talk about the specific issues they are campaigning on instead of the weird shit your pants rhetoric.


I am relieved that some in here have learned the difference between communism, socialism and democratic socialism. That is actually a huge step forward in discussing who these candidates are and the issues they are running on.

As long as the criminal Hillary Clinton has no chance.

 

[Denny Crane]

Listen, Mags is making the argument that if Sanders wants so of the social policies that Scandinavian countries have that means he wants a 70% tax rate. That's not an accurate argument or even something that Sanders has have said.

We can give employees paid sick time without raising taxes. We can give women paid maternity leave without raising taxes. There are things we can do for our citizens that improves their lives that doesn't involve raising taxes.

This is very similar to the smear campaign going against Trump right now, just because Trump has supported universal health care or has given money to democrat candidates doesn't mean he's some secret democrat in hiding.

Here are two candidates outside of the traditional political mold, we have a real chance this election to actually talk about policy and direction of the nation. Not just empty shit your pants rhetoric.

Sanders is a rapist, Sanders is a communist, now Sanders wants to raise taxes to 70%. WTF?!?

How instead of getting caught up in the BS being spread about both candidates we instead look at the issues they are running on.

Vague and inaccurate. He said a 90% tax rate wouldn't be too high.

 

[Denny Crane]

I didn't misuse anything, I explained the statement you made.

"Sanders wants a 90% tax rate, it's well documented."

That was vague and not accurate.


Listen Mags and Denny, I'm not defending Sanders. I do like him being in the race. He has brought important issues into the presidential discussion. So has Trump.

All I'm saying is lets talk about the specific issues they are campaigning on instead of the weird shit your pants rhetoric.


I am relieved that some in here have learned the difference between communism, socialism and democratic socialism. That is actually a huge step forward in discussing who these candidates are and the issues they are running on.

May as well add statism to the list.

 

[riverman]

Sanders wants a 90% tax rate, it's well documented.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/bernie-sanders-asks-if-american-economy-moral-n364541

I read that article and it doesn't say that at all. He referenced Eisenhower

 

[magnifier661]

I read that article and it doesn't say that at all. He referenced Eisenhower

I just posted the video where he said it

 

[julius]

I just posted the video where he said it

again, qualifiers.

 

[riverman]

I just posted the video where he said it

He referenced Eisenhower, he said for the top 1% he didn't think redistribution of wealth was necessarily wrong..he wasn't proposing it.

 

[julius]

He referenced Eisenhower, he said for the top 1% he didn't think redistribution of wealth was necessarily wrong..he wasn't proposing it.

It's funny how someone who has claimed he'd vote for Bernie if Trump wasn't the republican nomination, seems to be all about throwing out the talking points that the other republicans would use against him if he wins the nomination.

 

[magnifier661]

It's funny how someone who has claimed he'd vote for Bernie if Trump wasn't the republican nomination, seems to be all about throwing out the talking points that the other republicans would use against him if he wins the nomination.

I would absolutely want Bernie over Hillary and rather someone that isn't bought off by lobbyist and special interest groups over anyone else.

It goes Trump, Carson then Bernie for me

 

[magnifier661]

He referenced Eisenhower, he said for the top 1% he didn't think redistribution of wealth was necessarily wrong..he wasn't proposing it.

I don't disagree with taxing the really rich either. I'm just curious how Bernie thinks only taxing the rich will solve the revenue required to offer free healthcare, social welfare and schooling he is proposing? Every successful democratic socialist country has a 50% tax on GDP as Denny put out there. Taxing the rich won't give you that. Everyone needs to pay the kitty, which I doubt the poor or lower middle class will support:

 

[Denny Crane]

I read that article and it doesn't say that at all. He referenced Eisenhower

The self-described socialist senator from Vermont wants to reverse the "massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1 percent." The 90 percent top income tax rates America had during the 1950s might not be too high, he said.

But yeah, he didn't say that at all.

 

[magnifier661]

Obamacare really kicks in 2016, which I believe requires 3 trillion per year. <--- correct me if I'm wrong here.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ has us bringing in roughly 3.1 trillion in tax revenue. That revenue alone won't be able to pay for obamacare. So were does the rest of the money come from where the rich already pay 42% of their income to federal, while paying additional 8-15% to state?

EDIT: Obamacare doesn't cost 3 trillion in 1 year. The total cost is spread for 10 years. So actually its about 300 billion per year. My mistake....

 

[oldfisherman]

This is everything I have learned in the past 7 decades about the two party political races.

The Democrats promise to increase government spending to improve the welfare of our country.
In reality, they have spent less than they promised.

The Republicans promise to reduce government spending to improve the welfare of our country.
In reality, they have spent more than they promised.

Everything either party member says they will do to improve our country is pure bullshit just to get elected.

In the last 50 years, we have had very few presidents that did what was right for our country, and improved the welfare of our country, from either party.

Debatable, but I believe only Reagan and Clinton did what was right for our country. Not all of the time, but enough of the time to help improve our country, even though they had very different political and economic beliefs.

In the last 50 years, every other president has hurt our country more than they improved it.

Both systems, Capitalism and Socialism, can work; even a blend of Democratic socialism/capitalism can work. Results have more to do with the government leaders making the right decisions within the system they believe in. We need leaders that fix problems, not create more problems.

There in lies the real problem, which person running for president do you trust to make the right decisions?

 

[magnifier661]

This is everything I have learned in the past 7 decades about the two party political races.

The Democrats promise to increase government spending to improve the welfare of our country.
In reality, they have spent less than they promised.

The Republicans promise to reduce government spending to improve the welfare of our country.
In reality, they have spent more than they promised.

Everything either party member says they will do to improve our country is pure bullshit just to get elected.

In the last 50 years, we have had very few presidents that did what was right for our country, and improved the welfare of our country, from either party.

Debatable, but I believe only Reagan and Clinton did what was right for our country. Not all of the time, but enough of the time to help improve our country, even though they had very different political beliefs.

In the last 50 years, every other president has hurt our country more than they improved it.

Both systems, Democracy and Socialism, can work; even a blend of Democratic socialism can work. Results have more to do with the government leaders making the right decisions within the system they believe in. We need leaders that fix problems, not create more problems.

There in lies the real problem, which person running for president do you trust to make the right decisions?

And the one thing both those presidents have in common was their ability to have both parties agree for the most part. Both sides have had their fair share of leaders that created segregation more than cooperation.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[dviss1]

Back in the 70s and before, we paid taxes like that in this country. The top was 70% on 200K or so, but you started getting nailed quite low, in the 60% range on 60K.
When that was changed, I heard no bitch from a democrat. I doubt the current crop in here would like it either.

I don't know what you're talking about. I've been bitching ever since Reagan took the top marginal tax rate down from 79% to 29%. Fuck trickle down economics. They have never worked and never will work.

 

[dviss1]

sometimes I don't even know why I bother reading your posts anymore. You're too scared and gullible for your own good.

(that satire piece, that fake Obama quote you got your panties in a bunch over, and probably a dozen other threads you started that were so obviously in a chain mail that it's not even funny anymore)

This.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't know what you're talking about. I've been bitching ever since Reagan took the top marginal tax rate down from 79% to 29%. Fuck trickle down economics. They have never worked and never will work.

Except it did work.

The rest of your post is great!

 

[magnifier661]

This.

So how does Bernie adopt the model of Scandinavia then? How will Bernie tax +50% of the GDP?