• 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!

Bernie Sanders releases 10 years of tax returns, showing how his 2016 presidential run vaulted him i

Fishking said:
I don't know. All I know is that he paid a lower % than many who made less and also paid much lower than the amount that he considers a fair share.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Link to the return you're talking about so we can see the loopholes he used. I've seen them - nothing out of the ordinary there.

Here's a list of the returns he released. Which one are you talking about?

Tax Returns - Bernie Sanders
 
AlbqOwl said:
The difference between Sanders and Trump is that Sanders has been a public employee for the last 10 years and therefore no doubt has relatively simple tax returns that involve nobody but his family and who he has donated to. He doesn't expose other people to intense scrutiny by the papparazi, media, other candidates, various groups intent on making mischief etc. when he releases his tax returns.

President Trump pays taxes on income from a vast conglomerate of myriad businesses and investments, all involving private citizens and their businesses and who do not deserve to have their names publicized, speculated about, dragged through the mud, become subjects of conspiracy theories, etc. etc.

If we do not allow people a reasonable degree of privacy and confidentiality about such things, it will be that nobody will be able to run for office other than professional politicians.
Click to expand...

Trump has said many times he'd release them. So that lame excuse doesn't work. Romney released his returns - lots of business stuff in those returns.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
\\
Now, you might argue that Medicare for all would not mean delays in getting care or threaten the current Medicare program. Sure, I would agree with you, but it doesn't matter because there will be tens of millions of dollars spent on ads telling people that is what it will do. Every Republican in the country will be telling people that is what will happen.

And what will the result be? Another 4 years of despicable Trump.
Click to expand...

I agree with all that but shortened for brevity.

The other argument is polling from 2016, but the problem is the same one you pointed out. Hillary didn't want to trash him, because he wasn't ever a threat and she needed his supporters. Trump and the GOP didn't want to trash him because they knew they'd be facing Hillary and wanted his supporters. So he didn't exactly get a free pass, but he wasn't ever subjected to the right wing smear machine which is incredibly well funded, AND effective as hell. That doesn't prove he'd collapse, but polling then and now also doesn't tell us much of anything except that maybe people kind of like him as a person.

Just on Medicare for all - OK, the average family plan costs roughly $15,000 per year. Wait until the GOP starts talking about taxes going up $15 THOUSAND PER YEAR for every family in AMERICA to fund Bernies plan!!!

Yes, overall costs might drop, but taxes will DEFINITELY increase for everyone, and the amounts will be huge. In theory wages should rise as employers are freed from the obligation to fund healthcare for employees, but I can guess how well a GUARANTEED and massive tax increase is going to poll against the HOPE and PRAYER that employers will dutifully pass on their healthcare savings in the form of higher wages.... Disastrous IMO.
 
Surrealistik said:
Or y'know, you can acknowledge that we too have tens of millions to spend on counterpunching to highlight the obvious benefits of MFA in terms of healthcare coverage and improved fiscal efficiency, while going on the offensive over the Republicans' disastrous health care policies and lackthereof, beating the everloving **** out of them with the copious ammunition we have. If we bring our A game as we should, and actually fight for our beliefs, we will crush the Republicans, because in the end, versus Bernie, they have little to campaign on except fear and derision; a formula that worked exceedingly and demonstrably poorly for Clinton.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned above, the problem is the transition. Right now employers (and employees) pay something like $15,000 in premiums per family for healthcare insurance. With M4A that shifts overnight - employers pay nothing and employees pay nothing. So that cost is shifted to taxpayers - overnight - $15k per family per year.

You can't tax the rich enough to pay for it, so that will come somehow from everyone. And if we knew that our wages go up $15k per year, and we pay $12k per year more in taxes, a good deal! But that higher wages is a guess, a bet, something we cannot know till it happens.

That's just a massive uncertainty. We can talk about theoretical savings systemwide and those will probably happen. But the bottom line is MANY, MANY, MANY taxpayers are going to see huge tax increases way above the value of the 'free' healthcare, and once that's made clear and a $billion in ads or so will make it clear in ways we can't imagine, honest or not, I just don't see M4A happening. It's just too massive a change.

The worst part IMO is VERY few UHC systems around the world are M4A or similar. Canada is the only one I know about. The rest rely on a series of public and private funding....like ACA.
 
Aberration said:
So when one advocates for higher taxes on the evil 1%, but doesn’t voluntarily pay those taxes when he becomes part of that now not so evil 1%, you dont consider that lip service?

You say DJT is shellacking “them” and enriching himself. How?
Click to expand...

No. Of course not. The idea is stupid.

Or if you prefer, it's the same "lip service" as when Trump demands taxpayers LIKE ME who want nothing to do with his vanity wall pay for it with OUR taxes, but Trump doesn't voluntarily pay his fair share of the wall out of his own pocket, say $100 million for a multi-billionaire like Trump.
 
VanceMack said:
Making money doesnt make Bernie a hypocrite.Claiming the rich dont pay their fair share but by golly, he's going to do every bit of legal wrangling to keep whats 'his' does.
Click to expand...

What kind of legal wrangling are you talking about, specifically? Taking itemized deductions like all the rest of us used to do before TCJA?
 
JasperL said:
What kind of legal wrangling are you talking about, specifically? Taking itemized deductions like all the rest of us used to do before TCJA?
Click to expand...

Exactly. He will use every loophole and deduction available to him by law. He won’t be voluntarily paying what he has advocated for.

A real leader does so by example.
 
JasperL said:
As I mentioned above, the problem is the transition. Right now employers (and employees) pay something like $15,000 in premiums per family for healthcare insurance. With M4A that shifts overnight - employers pay nothing and employees pay nothing. So that cost is shifted to taxpayers - overnight - $15k per family per year.

You can't tax the rich enough to pay for it, so that will come somehow from everyone. And if we knew that our wages go up $15k per year, and we pay $12k per year more in taxes, a good deal! But that higher wages is a guess, a bet, something we cannot know till it happens.

That's just a massive uncertainty. We can talk about theoretical savings systemwide and those will probably happen. But the bottom line is MANY, MANY, MANY taxpayers are going to see huge tax increases way above the value of the 'free' healthcare, and once that's made clear and a $billion in ads or so will make it clear in ways we can't imagine, honest or not, I just don't see M4A happening. It's just too massive a change.

The worst part IMO is VERY few UHC systems around the world are M4A or similar. Canada is the only one I know about. The rest rely on a series of public and private funding....like ACA.
Click to expand...

You seem to be assuming both that the overall cost will remain relatively high (I think we can do better than 20% savings) , and that any such transition would indeed be 'overnight' versus a multiyear rollout which is almost certainly going to be the case if/when this legislation passes.

Second, who exactly is going to be taxed to a degree that that their healthcare effectively costs way more than the value of their healthcare when the alternative is a fragmented private insurance market bloated by middle man cuts, redundancies, excess supplier/provider costs without a central/dominant payer to control them, and administrative waste? If you more mean that people are going to end up paying more out of pocket overall than they receive back in wages as a consequence of this shift, that seems pretty improbable to me, though I do feel there might be initial issues with stickiness/inertia in the matter.

Third, despite recent conspicuous attempts by the Conservative party to starve it of funds and privatize, Britain's NHS is an immensely efficient and performance SP healthcare system relative to dollars spent, and virtually every UHC system has substantially heavier involvement of the government than the American one at present, ACA or not, with public options being dominant (in fact, Germany has higher public expenditure on healthcare than Canada despite featuring a hybrid payer system).
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
No. Of course not. The idea is stupid.

Or if you prefer, it's the same "lip service" as when Trump demands taxpayers LIKE ME who want nothing to do with his vanity wall pay for it with OUR taxes, but Trump doesn't voluntarily pay his fair share of the wall out of his own pocket, say $100 million for a multi-billionaire like Trump.
Click to expand...

And that’s the problem. It’s not an idea. It’s reality.

Your example is not lip service. Trump has not advocated for people to pay a ‘fair share’ of the wall. There are examples I can think of that are more appropriate.
 
Aberration said:
Exactly. He will use every loophole and deduction available to him by law. He won’t be voluntarily paying what he has advocated for.

A real leader does so by example.
Click to expand...

I'd say there's a notable and obvious difference between trying to minimize tax liabilities per the law as written, and forming elaborate, well funded lobby groups and otherwise paying lobbyists collectively hundreds of millions of dollars as the wealthy and corporations do in tandem with generous political donations to pursue and get tax minimizing policies/legislation/loopholes passed into law for a return on investment.

It's not simply that they're following the rules, it's that they're also writing them for their own benefit.
 
JasperL said:
What kind of legal wrangling are you talking about, specifically? Taking itemized deductions like all the rest of us used to do before TCJA?
Click to expand...
Yep...all those legal wranglings that Bernie has been bitching about for the last 4 years.

He is a piece of **** hypocrite. Not surprisingly...idiot leftists are all too willing to swallow his **** for him.
 
JasperL said:
Your source didn't support the notion he proposed slave reparations. He only said he'd sign it if it got through Congress, which it won't. He's not running on it, and I've never heard him bring it up in any speech.
Click to expand...

What a silly excuse. He doesnt have to propose it. The fact that he spoke in favor of it pretty much tells us where he stands on the issue.

Obscurity said:
Wrong. Sanders is on record stating what he thinks of reparations. He doesn't mean paychecks. He means enhanced opportunity through equality of access, primarily to education.
Click to expand...

Cant you read? What part of this quote isnt clear enough to you?

Sanders called for "real attention to the most distressed communities in America" and the use of "10 percent of all federal funds to make sure that kids who need it get the education, get the jobs, get the environmental protection that they need"
 
Surrealistik said:
Gotta love how CNN immediately tries to imply that the money from his book sales makes him a hypocrite and someone who's lost his credibility as a populist and with the working class as a consequence; I laughed.
Click to expand...

I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means, Hypocrisy Edition

If you remember the 2004 election, which unfortunately I do, there were quite a few journalists who basically accused John Kerry of being “inauthentic” because he was a rich man advocating policies that would help the poor and the middle class. Apparently you can only be authentic if your politics reflect pure personal self-interest — Mitt Romney [and D. Trump] are Mr. Naturals.

So to say what should be obvious but apparently isn’t: supporting policies that are to your personal financial disadvantage isn’t hypocrisy — it’s civic virtue!
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
Right. I have to worry about the government doing it. We've seen how piss-poorly the government polices itself.

What are we supposed to do then? Shop around? :lamo
Click to expand...

Single payer doesn't work like that. Single payer gives you the freedom to leave your job for a new one and not worry about coverage. It gives you the freedom to leave a ****ty doctor for a different doctor. It gives you the freedom to use a different pharmacy without worrying about the pharmacist being a dick and denying you certain pills.

The government would do nothing but pay the bill and negotiate for better prices. Right now insurance companies are being shellacked by hospital conglomerates demanding more and more premium payments from insurance companies as they merge into larger and larger networks.
 
Aberration said:
So when one advocates for higher taxes on the evil 1%, but doesn’t voluntarily pay those taxes when he becomes part of that now not so evil 1%, you dont consider that lip service?

You say DJT is shellacking “them” and enriching himself. How?
Click to expand...

You're braindead. Sanders voted against the tax bill that would benefit him.

Voluntarily pay those taxes? What is this, the Hannity show?
 
PoS said:
What a silly excuse. He doesnt have to propose it. The fact that he spoke in favor of it pretty much tells us where he stands on the issue.



Cant you read? What part of this quote isnt clear enough to you?

Sanders called for "real attention to the most distressed communities in America" and the use of "10 percent of all federal funds to make sure that kids who need it get the education, get the jobs, get the environmental protection that they need"
Click to expand...

Which is not the same thing as cutting a check to families, learn to read. It's literally like teaching a class of toddlers in here. Y'all are so stuck in your cognitive dissonance it's pathetic.
 
Idiometer said:
Do you really not care that some of the biggest, richest corporations in America paid ZERO taxes for 2018?

Tax Rates: Amazon, Netflix, IBM Pay No Federal Income Taxes | Money

That's all thanks to Trump's tax "reform" bill. Do you have no idea how much of a revenue shortfal that bill has created? Or the incredible amount it has added, and will continue to add, to our defict? All of that is okay with you? Seriously?

:think:
Click to expand...

With respect, I did a little research on the taxes paid by Amazon over the years.

Bezos heads a company that has a stock price that has gone through the roof and had not posted a profit in all of the years up to the point of the research that I did.

That was probably in about 2016. Could have been 2017. Not sure.

My conclusion at that time was that Bezos was a genius. He was running a company that had never shown a profit and always had an increasing stock value. Genius! How did he do it? This guy could sell ice to Eskimos.

My problem with Bernie is not that he tries to pay the least taxes. That's what EVERYONE should do. My problem is that he lies about his beliefs on paying taxes. He demonstrates the dictionary definition of "hypocrite".

He says that the very rich should pay a whole bunch more than the little guy and, like you seem to do, he clearly objects to the Trump tax cuts.

He now IS one of the very rich and he is trying to pay the least he legally can pay. He has the option to pay any amount more than he is legally required to pay. He also donates only a pittance to charity.

He needs to pick a side of the mouth he can live with and talk out of that same side all the time.

[h=1]hypocrite[/h] [FONT=&quot]noun
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]hyp·​o·​crite [FONT=&quot]| \ ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit


\[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[h=2]Definition of hypocrite[/h]

[FONT=&quot]1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

[FONT=&quot]2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
[/FONT]

[/FONT]
 
code1211 said:
With respect, I did a little research on the taxes paid by Amazon over the years.

Bezos heads a company that has a stock price that has gone through the roof and had not posted a profit in all of the years up to the point of the research that I did.

That was probably in about 2016. Could have been 2017. Not sure.

My conclusion at that time was that Bezos was a genius. He was running a company that had never shown a profit and always had an increasing stock value. Genius! How did he do it? This guy could sell ice to Eskimos.

My problem with Bernie is not that he tries to pay the least taxes. That's what EVERYONE should do. My problem is that he lies about his beliefs on paying taxes. He demonstrates the dictionary definition of "hypocrite".

He says that the very rich should pay a whole bunch more than the little guy and, like you seem to do, he clearly objects to the Trump tax cuts.

He now IS one of the very rich and he is trying to pay the least he legally can pay. He has the option to pay any amount more than he is legally required to pay. He also donates only a pittance to charity.

He needs to pick a side of the mouth he can live with and talk out of that same side all the time.

[h=1]hypocrite[/h] [FONT="][B][URL="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noun"]noun[/URL][/B]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]hyp·​o·​crite[/FONT] [FONT="]| \ ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit


\
[/FONT]
[h=2]Definition of hypocrite[/h]

[FONT="][B]1[/B][COLOR=#303336][FONT=inherit][B]: [/B][/FONT]a person who puts on a false appearance of [URL="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtue"]virtue[/URL] or religion

[FONT="]2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
[/FONT]

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Spare us the Hannity talking points. Sanders voted AGAINST the bill and thus his own self interest. How many republican elitists can say the same thing? Sanders isn't even one of the richest members of congress, so again, I call your bluff and say you're full of ****ing ****.
 
JasperL said:
He's no more a hypocrite than anyone who wanted funding for Trump's border wall and didn't send in a check for that. Trump is a hypocrite for not spending $100 million of his own money for the wall. Or people who want more funding for the military and don't voluntarily pay their "fair share" of the cost they want ME TO PAY!!! Etc.

It's a stupid talking point.
Click to expand...

You're comparing unlike things.
 
Obscurity said:
Which is not the same thing as cutting a check to families, learn to read. It's literally like teaching a class of toddlers in here. Y'all are so stuck in your cognitive dissonance it's pathetic.
Click to expand...

Are you for real? It doesnt matter if a check is cut or not. 10% of all federal funding is $400 billion- thats gotta come from somewhere. Why do you think the Pentagon cut back on military expenditures to fund part of Trump's wall? Socialists have always failed epically because they dont know how to count.
 
Obscurity said:
Spare us the Hannity talking points. Sanders voted AGAINST the bill and thus his own self interest. How many republican elitists can say the same thing? Sanders isn't even one of the richest members of congress, so again, I call your bluff and say you're full of ****ing ****.
Click to expand...

Well, if you use profanity, then you must be right.

My father was a pretty disciplined guy and he never used profanity. He said on a few occasions that profanity is how the uneducated express themselves.

Out of curiosity, what is my "bluff"?

Sanders said he wants to pay higher taxes. Given the opportunity, he did not pay them. When asked about it, he actually laughed out loud.

The guy is a hypocrite. He is, by his actions and reactions and words demonstrating the dictionary definition of what a hypocrite is.

Outside of this, as an author of rape fantasy and now a renowned liar and hypocrite, he is running for the office of President of the USA.

ALL of that is okay. It is only wise for the rest of us to understand who the guy is and what he values and does.

When he was NOT a millionaire, he endorsed taking huge amounts of cash from both Millionaires and Billionaires. No, hew's only after the Billionaires. I wonder what changed his outlook...

All people are equal, but some are more equal than others.
 
Aberration said:
Exactly. He will use every loophole and deduction available to him by law. He won’t be voluntarily paying what he has advocated for.

A real leader does so by example.
Click to expand...

Of course not. Same as you aren't voluntarily paying extra for the Wall, or for the military in years you want them better funded. Congrats. Why won't you lead by example?
 
JasperL said:
No. Of course not. The idea is stupid.

Or if you prefer, it's the same "lip service" as when Trump demands taxpayers LIKE ME who want nothing to do with his vanity wall pay for it with OUR taxes, but Trump doesn't voluntarily pay his fair share of the wall out of his own pocket, say $100 million for a multi-billionaire like Trump.
Click to expand...

The same applies to those of us who paid compensation for decades to those who were unwilling or unable to work or those who illegally cross our borders because we don't have a secure border, with OUR taxes.

President Trump's "fair share" of the wall is more like 2 bucks. Divide the cost by the population you get "fair share". What you're proposing is redistribution of wealth.

IOW, the rich should pay it all because you don't want to pay anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom