• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Liberal Vermont Senator Sanders may seek U.S. presidency in 2016

and if Bernie Sanders is elected you will continue to do so
however, if another neocon is elected, either you will pay more taxes on your modest income, or the national deficit will continue to increase, or some of both will occur

My modest income. :lol:
 
Poor people and lower middle class people don't need to worry about Chanel handbags.

So how much would you like to take from the 1 percenters to give out to everyone else? And how exactly would we middle classers get the money - checks from the government?

I shop at Kohls and Macys. If the 1 percenters were taxed some more, or were forced to give up their billions, how much less would the cost of what I buy there be, and why?

I'm not in favor of government checks nor of higher taxes. No, I think the way to solve the problem of income inequality is more in the realm of free markets.

For one thing, let's not collect taxes to bail out the "too big to fail" entities, then let them pay their 1%ers huge bonuses. For another, let's tax all income the same, regardless of source. Then, let's get rid of the system whereby the wealthy purchase influence in the government that helps them become even more wealthy. There are several things that could be done to keep the US from becoming more like third world countries in which all of the wealth in concentrated in just a few hands.
 
I'm not in favor of government checks nor of higher taxes. No, I think the way to solve the problem of income inequality is more in the realm of free markets.

For one thing, let's not collect taxes to bail out the "too big to fail" entities, then let them pay their 1%ers huge bonuses. For another, let's tax all income the same, regardless of source. Then, let's get rid of the system whereby the wealthy purchase influence in the government that helps them become even more wealthy. There are several things that could be done to keep the US from becoming more like third world countries in which all of the wealth in concentrated in just a few hands.

I agree with that, especially with regard to capital gains. Or, if we insist on preferential capital gains treatment, making the holding period 5 years or 10 years so actual long term investors have an incentive for making LONG TERM investments. One year isn't long term. And certainly all pay (stock options and the like, hedge fund manager pay) should be taxed as ordinary income, same as wages, since those things are given in exchange for labor.

I'm a little bit torn on transfer payments (food stamps, medicaid, ACA subsidies, etc.). I'm not sure if they didn't exist if McD or Walmart (to pick two low wage employers at random) could get workers at $8 an hour if those workers couldn't depend on food stamps and Medicaid to cover healthcare for their kids. The theory is the wage floor in a "free market" is set by subsistence - workers won't tolerate pay below that level. What's unclear is what "subsistence" means in a 'free market' in the U.S. It could be just enough to buy food sufficient to avoid starvation and shelter sufficient to keep from freezing in winter and healthcare is optional? I don't know, but if the floor is that low, I don't think we can do without transfer payments and have stable society.
 
I'm not in favor of government checks nor of higher taxes. No, I think the way to solve the problem of income inequality is more in the realm of free markets.

For one thing, let's not collect taxes to bail out the "too big to fail" entities, then let them pay their 1%ers huge bonuses. For another, let's tax all income the same, regardless of source. Then, let's get rid of the system whereby the wealthy purchase influence in the government that helps them become even more wealthy. There are several things that could be done to keep the US from becoming more like third world countries in which all of the wealth in concentrated in just a few hands.

This didn't answer my questions though. I asked you how taxing the 1 percenters would result in middle class people gaining some of their wealth. I also asked you how taxing them more would reduce the cost of goods in stores.
 
Google is your friend.

Sanders Details Tax Plan, Declines Secrecy Offer - Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday laid out tax reform proposals in letters to Sens. Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch. He declined an offer by the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee to keep his proposals secret.

Sanders wrote in letters that spelled out specific proposals to:

•Stop profitable Wall Street banks and corporations from sheltering profits in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Closing that tax loophole would reduce the deficit and create jobs that millions of Americans need.

•Establish a Wall Street speculation fee to ensure that large financial institutions pay their fair share in taxes. A fee of 0.03 percent on the sale of credit default swaps, derivatives, options, futures, and large amounts of stock would reduce gambling on Wall Street, encourage the financial sector to invest in the productive economy, and reduce the deficit by $352 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

•End tax breaks and subsidies for oil, gas and coal companies to reduce the deficit by more than $113 billion over the next 10 years. The five largest oil companies in the United States have made more than $1 trillion in profits over the past decade. Exxon Mobil is now the most profitable corporation in the world. Large, profitable fossil fuel companies do not need a tax break.

•Tax carbon and methane emissions that cause global warming. A bill by Sanders and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the Senate environment committee chairman, would apply fee at coal mines, oil refineries, national gas processing plants and other sites. Imported fuels would be subject to equivalent carbon fees. Some of the revenue would be returned to consumers and some would pay for investments in energy efficiency, sustainable energy, worker training and deficit reduction.

•Tax capital gains and dividends of the wealthiest 2 percent at the same rate as ordinary income to yield about $500 billion over the next decade. Today, the wealthy obtain most of their income from capital gains and dividends taxed at a much lower rate than work. The top marginal income tax for working is 39.6 percent, but the top tax rate on corporate dividends and capital gains is only 20 percent. That is not fair.

Lol !!

The guys a absolute lunatic.
 
I agree with that, especially with regard to capital gains. Or, if we insist on preferential capital gains treatment, making the holding period 5 years or 10 years so actual long term investors have an incentive for making LONG TERM investments. One year isn't long term. And certainly all pay (stock options and the like, hedge fund manager pay) should be taxed as ordinary income, same as wages, since those things are given in exchange for labor.

I'm a little bit torn on transfer payments (food stamps, medicaid, ACA subsidies, etc.). I'm not sure if they didn't exist if McD or Walmart (to pick two low wage employers at random) could get workers at $8 an hour if those workers couldn't depend on food stamps and Medicaid to cover healthcare for their kids. The theory is the wage floor in a "free market" is set by subsistence - workers won't tolerate pay below that level. What's unclear is what "subsistence" means in a 'free market' in the U.S. It could be just enough to buy food sufficient to avoid starvation and shelter sufficient to keep from freezing in winter and healthcare is optional? I don't know, but if the floor is that low, I don't think we can do without transfer payments and have stable society.

Long term capital gains are taxed at a different rate because most of the people making the laws, as well as the lobbyists who have their ear, make most of their money from capital gains. The root of the problem is that money has more of an influence on politics than people do.

As for low wage workers, yes, the government is subsidizing such employers by providing "free" health insurance and food stamps to their employees. It's purely a subsidy to big business and favors those who choose to hire from the bottom of the barrel. Such a subsidy could possibly be justified from the standpoint of providing employment to the marginally employable, but let's call it what it is: a subsidy.

Rather than have all the subsidies and minimum wage laws, we'd be better off if the government were the employer of last resort. No one would be willing to work for less than the government is willing and able to pay, why would they?

Moreover, let's join the civilized world and institute a system of universal health care, not paid for or connected to employment. Not only would it be a lot cheaper than the current system, but it would make it a lot easier to leave the corporate world, start a small business and be your own boss. Lifting the burden of health care from the employers would do more to create jobs than any tax break given to the wealthy.
 
This didn't answer my questions though. I asked you how taxing the 1 percenters would result in middle class people gaining some of their wealth. I also asked you how taxing them more would reduce the cost of goods in stores.

There is a lot more to it than simply soaking the rich. Doing so would probably not result in more middle class.

See my response to Jaspert.
 
There is a lot more to it than simply soaking the rich. Doing so would probably not result in more middle class.

See my response to Jaspert.

The only reason to tax them more in an effort to get some "income equality" would be to find a way to actually have the middle class get more, not the poor, not the military, not Israel, not anyone else. I have yet to see a proposal that makes that happen.
 
The only reason to tax them more in an effort to get some "income equality" would be to find a way to actually have the middle class get more, not the poor, not the military, not Israel, not anyone else. I have yet to see a proposal that makes that happen.

If capital gains were to be taxed the same as earned income, then possibly the rate for both could go down. That would be a boon to the middle class. Other than that, it's mostly a redirection of tax money that is needed.

Universal health care would be a huge boon to the middle class, as it would relieve them and their employers of the burden of providing health care. Some people who have their own businesses are paying many thousands of dollars per year for health care coverage, for example, and those who work for others could easily negotiate for higher salaries if the employer weren't saddled with that burden.

Lower cost college tuition would improve the middle class by making it easier for them to send kids to college, as well as by making it easier for the poor to move up to middle class status.

That sort of thing would pay dividends in the long run.
 
If capital gains were to be taxed the same as earned income, then possibly the rate for both could go down. That would be a boon to the middle class. Other than that, it's mostly a redirection of tax money that is needed.

Universal health care would be a huge boon to the middle class, as it would relieve them and their employers of the burden of providing health care. Some people who have their own businesses are paying many thousands of dollars per year for health care coverage, for example, and those who work for others could easily negotiate for higher salaries if the employer weren't saddled with that burden.

Lower cost college tuition would improve the middle class by making it easier for them to send kids to college, as well as by making it easier for the poor to move up to middle class status.

That sort of thing would pay dividends in the long run.

I understand all of this but it doesn't really tell me what I need.

If say Warren Buffet was taxed more, how much more money would you & I have as middle class people? The lower college costs is fine, but if someone doesn't have kids, or if someone's kids are already out of school (or go on a scholarship), no benefit to them. I pay thousands of dollars a year for healthcare for my family; I'm not sure how taxing Buffet more will change that (I don't think it will make costs come down).
 
I understand all of this but it doesn't really tell me what I need.

If say Warren Buffet was taxed more, how much more money would you & I have as middle class people? The lower college costs is fine, but if someone doesn't have kids, or if someone's kids are already out of school (or go on a scholarship), no benefit to them. I pay thousands of dollars a year for healthcare for my family; I'm not sure how taxing Buffet more will change that (I don't think it will make costs come down).

Once again, I haven't advocated raising taxes. Most of what I've posted revolves around redirecting taxes away from subsidies for wealthy entities and toward programs that benefit the middle class.

However, the question remains: How much revenue could be generated by raising the tax on capital gains? According to the CBO, a 2% raise would generate a little over 50 billion over the next nine years.

As a percentage of the whole, that's not a lot, but then, neither is a 2% increase.

Now, let's look at the effect of income disparity and the overall economy. What do you think the effect of wealth being more and more concentrated is having on the economy as a whole? Is it a good thing, negative thing, or neutral?
 
Once again, I haven't advocated raising taxes. Most of what I've posted revolves around redirecting taxes away from subsidies for wealthy entities and toward programs that benefit the middle class.

However, the question remains: How much revenue could be generated by raising the tax on capital gains? According to the CBO, a 2% raise would generate a little over 50 billion over the next nine years.

As a percentage of the whole, that's not a lot, but then, neither is a 2% increase.

Now, let's look at the effect of income disparity and the overall economy. What do you think the effect of wealth being more and more concentrated is having on the economy as a whole? Is it a good thing, negative thing, or neutral?

Okay then we're having different discussions. Bernie Sanders wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. That's all well and good, and neat that it raises revenue for the government, but it won't help the middle class, and it won't solve income inequality.
 
Okay then we're having different discussions. Bernie Sanders wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. That's all well and good, and neat that it raises revenue for the government, but it won't help the middle class, and it won't solve income inequality.

No, it won't solve income inequality. It might make a little bit of a difference, but not much. There are many other things that need to be done to solve this problem, starting with the recognition that it actually is a problem.
 
Article from yesterday that has his intent to most likely run as a Democrat instead of a third party should he run for prez.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on 2016: 'If I run, I will run to win'

"If I run, I will run to win," Sanders, 73, said Tuesday at a CNN/National Journal event in Washington, D.C., dismissing the notion that his interest is to play spoiler for Hillary Clinton's potential bid for the Democratic nomination.

"I can't walk down the street without being asked about Hillary," the self-proclaimed "democratic socialist" and longest-serving independent member of Congress said. "If I decide to run for president, it's not against Hillary Clinton."

On Sunday's "Meet the Press," Sanders said he is considering a run for president — as a Democrat.

"I am thinking about running for president," Sanders said. "Running as a Democrat — that’s something that I’m looking at right now."
 
Article from yesterday that has his intent to most likely run as a Democrat instead of a third party should he run for prez.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on 2016: 'If I run, I will run to win'

"If I run, I will run to win," Sanders, 73, said Tuesday at a CNN/National Journal event in Washington, D.C., dismissing the notion that his interest is to play spoiler for Hillary Clinton's potential bid for the Democratic nomination.

"I can't walk down the street without being asked about Hillary," the self-proclaimed "democratic socialist" and longest-serving independent member of Congress said. "If I decide to run for president, it's not against Hillary Clinton."

On Sunday's "Meet the Press," Sanders said he is considering a run for president — as a Democrat.

"I am thinking about running for president," Sanders said. "Running as a Democrat — that’s something that I’m looking at right now."

It would be refreshing to have a candidate who says what he truly believes and the people can take to the bank what he says. Sure would beat the old tell the people what they want to hear that everyone running for office does.
 
It would be refreshing to have a candidate who says what he truly believes and the people can take to the bank what he says. Sure would beat the old tell the people what they want to hear that everyone running for office does.

You know the Gandhi saying...

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."​

Well it seems we are already through the "ignoring" part already. The opposition research is surfacing their intent to go into the "laugh at you" phase.

Sen. Bernie Sanders cut a record in 1987 and it’s exactly what you’d expect
 
You know the Gandhi saying...

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."​

Well it seems we are already through the "ignoring" part already. The opposition research is surfacing their intent to go into the "laugh at you" phase.

Sen. Bernie Sanders cut a record in 1987 and it’s exactly what you’d expect

I highly doubt I would ever vote for him, but he has and always had my respect. I wish him luck. Let's just say, laugh at your own risk.
 
Yep, it would be a cold day in Hell when I vote for Sanders. The scary thing is, if Obama got elected, then who the hell doesn't have a shot?

There are lots of people on the left in this country that don't give a hoot about what this country was founded on, and will blissfully vote for anyone with a "D" next to his/her name because, awe shucks, he cares about the people.
 
Yep, it would be a cold day in Hell when I vote for Sanders. The scary thing is, if Obama got elected, then who the hell doesn't have a shot?

There are lots of people on the left in this country that don't give a hoot about what this country was founded on, and will blissfully vote for anyone with a "D" next to his/her name because, awe shucks, he cares about the people.

Yep, it would be a cold day in Hell when I wouldn't vote for Sanders. The scary thing is, if Bush got elected, then who the hell doesn't have a shot?

There are lots of people on the right in this country that don't give a hoot about what this country was founded on, and will blissfully vote for anyone with a "R" next to his/her name because, awe shucks, he cares about the people
 
Yep, it would be a cold day in Hell when I wouldn't vote for Sanders. The scary thing is, if Bush got elected, then who the hell doesn't have a shot?

There are lots of people on the right in this country that don't give a hoot about what this country was founded on, and will blissfully vote for anyone with a "R" next to his/her name because, awe shucks, he cares about the people

Impressive.:doh
 
Impressive.:doh

Yeppers... when you write generalized garbage it can be morphed rather easily. I've read your posts before and you're much smarter than what you wrote there.
 
Yep, it would be a cold day in Hell when I vote for Sanders. The scary thing is, if Obama got elected, then who the hell doesn't have a shot?

There are lots of people on the left in this country that don't give a hoot about what this country was founded on, and will blissfully vote for anyone with a "D" next to his/her name because, awe shucks, he cares about the people.

You're such a partisan.

United States President Barack Obama, a member of the Democratic Party, was endorsed or supported by some members of the Republican Party and by some political figures holding conservative views in the 2008 election. Republican and conservative Obama supporters were often referred to as "Obama Republicans", "Obamacans" or "Obamacons".[1]

Republican and conservative supporters of Obama included elected officials, former elected officials, academics, commentators, and retired military officers. According to exit polls on Election Day, 9% of those who identified themselves as Republicans voted for Barack Obama,[2] up slightly from the 6% of self-identified Republicans who voted for John Kerry in 2004.[3]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_and_conservative_support_for_Barack_Obama_in_2008

Final Tally Shows Obama First Since ’56 to Win 51% Twice.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-03/final-tally-shows-obama-first-since-56-to-win-51-twice.html
 
Yep, it would be a cold day in Hell when I wouldn't vote for Sanders. The scary thing is, if Bush got elected, then who the hell doesn't have a shot?

There are lots of people on the right in this country that don't give a hoot about what this country was founded on, and will blissfully vote for anyone with a "R" next to his/her name because, awe shucks, he cares about the people

And, we need only go back to the lase election to prove you wrong. Two inferior candidates. People on the right were not excited about Romney, and did not come out and vote for him, even though you claim they do because he had an "R" next to his name. Yet, the left voted for Obama, perhaps the least qualified candidate ever, and compound that by the fact that he already served one term and proved that he was not up to the job.
 
And, we need only go back to the lase election to prove you wrong. Two inferior candidates. People on the right were not excited about Romney, and did not come out and vote for him, even though you claim they do because he had an "R" next to his name. Yet, the left voted for Obama, perhaps the least qualified candidate ever, and compound that by the fact that he already served one term and proved that he was not up to the job.

That's just opinion. You are dismissing others' opinions and trying to state it as fact. Just because you don't agree with their opinion doesn't mean you know their view of Obama. They apparently DID think he was qualified and had a good first term. Your opinion doesn't supersede theirs. In fact, it was apparently an inferior opinion if you use the election as a measure.

And yes, Romney wasn't someone to get much voter excitement over, but your guy's selection was rather thin to choose from this time.
 
Yep, it would be a cold day in Hell when I wouldn't vote for Sanders. The scary thing is, if Bush got elected, then who the hell doesn't have a shot?

There are lots of people on the right in this country that don't give a hoot about what this country was founded on, and will blissfully vote for anyone with a "R" next to his/her name because, awe shucks, he cares about the people

I'm sure there are places in the country where voters just vote straight D tickets, but I just saw the worst example of it in my city in my lifetime at least. We had a Chancellor, who was the best Chancellor in my county, lawyers loved being in his court because he was predictable and fair and knew his stuff - no surprises. Anyway, he's a democrat and some yahoo, with a failed law practice and three attempts to pass the bar and no endorsements even from the GOP because he's an incompetent fool, but he gets on the ballot with an R next to his name..... and wins by 7 points. Pretty sad really.
 
Back
Top Bottom