|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
On May 09 2019 14:59 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2019 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 14:23 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 14:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 14:01 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 13:33 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 13:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 12:58 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 12:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You're talking about different taxes.
How in the world did you manage to get $8836 less per year? I don't think I am talking about different taxes. Hunts mentioned "make enough" and "tax brackets" which refers to income tax lol Also, like i suspected, it is more than 8k for me I went to Bernie's advanced calculator, and filled it out with more details. Turns out I'd lose $16k if I made the same amount of money as I did in 2018 lol. So the amount I lose out on doubles because my income is non-wage lol. Hunts was talking responding to the 50% rate which would only be on money after the highest bracket, not money before. You're talking about a more general tax plan related to healthcare. They may overlap but are also distinct. Is this supposed to be a humble brag? Because the only way I can figure out you'd get a number like that is with an income that was more than 99% of people in the country (most people consider this pretty rich, like the 99% that don't have it). In which case I don't care if you lose $16k you're confident you "earned" To Faki's point that sure as hell isn't "modern day slavery", it's the prison industrial complex that comes closest to that in the US. Faki said that when you include all forms of tax, including state, sales, property, etc, that it is over 50% for a lot of well off people. So I assumed that was what they were talking about. I only brought it up because I was (perhaps mistakenly) under the impression that hunts was saying that some of these Democrat tax plans wouldnt affect anybody here - that they'd only affect the super rich. And even though I'm a libertarian, I dont think paying taxes is slavery or even theft either Fair enough, and I can't promise that's exactly what hunts meant, but it is how I read it. Now that we've cleared that up can we clear up how in the world you got to a figure of $16,000+ the tax plan would cost you? Because, while certainly a shocking number, I think it needs more context to be of any value. Well you nailed the context lol. Last year I made a lot of money, I'm single, and my income is capital gains. Bernie's tax plan, on paper, achieves its goal, making me pay my "fair share" So you're complaining about paying $16k out of hundreds of thousands of dollars (that's not even for work you did) so that people don't die and expecting sympathy? I just feel there's gotta be more to this? First of all, I dont recall complaining. I just stated that it would affect me (I thought hunts was saying it only affects the super rich) Second of all, I did work for it. Not sure what you mean there. Third of all, I don't believe the leftist healthcare model is a good thing and it will eventually just fuck the poor people over more than they already get fucked. But that is another topic. Anyways, I honestly don't care that much. My point was simply that Bernie's tax policy would affect people other than the super rich. Sorry it was fiwifaki that was complaining (likening taxation to slavery), and Bisu "fighting" the taxes, you (as I noted in my edit) we're making the argument that the bar for the "super-rich was comically low", I disagree that being in the top richest 1% income in the wealthiest country on the planet is "comically low", what's your argument that it is? Capital gains taxes aren't on (payment for) work, they're on transfer of assets, is what I meant btw. wtf is a humble brag dude
I was just responding to some guy who I thought was saying that it's delusional to think that Bernie's tax policy wouldnt affect any of us...that it only affects the super rich
Bernie always talks about going after the super rich. Does the super rich include doctors, lawyers, small business owners and pharmacists? A humble brag: an ostensibly modest or self-deprecating statement whose actual purpose is to draw attention to something of which one is proud. That you were talking about how much you'd pay in taxes (ostensibly modest, especially since you haven't shared the income that tax is derived from) when really you are proud that you "earned" that income. In quotes because I have no idea what you did other than it wasn't taxed as labor. The situation you described yourself isn't one of those professions because they don't pay capital gains tax on the majority of their income. Except maybe lawyers? and "pharmacists" making that kinda money probably aren't paying any taxes, if you know what I mean? The mistake seems not to be that it would only impact people that could reasonably be called "super rich", but that we didn't have someone (probably several) like that here. I trade for a living, meaning I pay short term capital gains tax on my profits. Short term capital gains tax is the same rate as income tax a doctor or lawyer would pay. Since effort was involved in making that money, I'd say I earned it. I know a pharmacist couple who together make over 400k, and non-retail non-hospital pharmacists can make in that range as well. Would this discussion make a difference to you if I made my money as a doctor?
Like trading stocks? If so, I don't want you to take it personally, but I don't consider that "work" in the same sense I consider what a doctor or plumber do "work" or "earning". So yes it would make a difference.
You're uncomfortable with someone making (i'm being forced to guesstimate here) ~$500,000/yr being called "super rich" (what do you prefer?)
I have to ask then how you describe someone making 1/10 of that? Where would you feel the "super rich" label becomes applicable?
EDIT: I should mention the source of the capital you use to trade matters as well
|
Hoping gabbard is as antiwar as she sells herself as. She seems to have fairly thoughtful responses in interviews I've seen with her. It's frustrating when candidates can give nothing but canned, evasive non answers. Yang seems refreshing in this respect as well. Will be easier to follow when the field thins out some.
|
Excuse me again for my ignorance and laziness, but another quick question: is Bernie singular in his "leftist" policies, or are there any nominees running on high progressive taxation, universal healthcare and free education?
|
On May 09 2019 15:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2019 14:59 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 14:23 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 14:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 14:01 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 13:33 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 13:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 12:58 BerserkSword wrote:
[quote]
I don't think I am talking about different taxes.
Hunts mentioned "make enough" and "tax brackets" which refers to income tax lol
Also, like i suspected, it is more than 8k for me
I went to Bernie's advanced calculator, and filled it out with more details. Turns out I'd lose $16k if I made the same amount of money as I did in 2018 lol. So the amount I lose out on doubles because my income is non-wage lol.
Hunts was talking responding to the 50% rate which would only be on money after the highest bracket, not money before. You're talking about a more general tax plan related to healthcare. They may overlap but are also distinct. Is this supposed to be a humble brag? Because the only way I can figure out you'd get a number like that is with an income that was more than 99% of people in the country (most people consider this pretty rich, like the 99% that don't have it). In which case I don't care if you lose $16k you're confident you "earned" To Faki's point that sure as hell isn't "modern day slavery", it's the prison industrial complex that comes closest to that in the US. Faki said that when you include all forms of tax, including state, sales, property, etc, that it is over 50% for a lot of well off people. So I assumed that was what they were talking about. I only brought it up because I was (perhaps mistakenly) under the impression that hunts was saying that some of these Democrat tax plans wouldnt affect anybody here - that they'd only affect the super rich. And even though I'm a libertarian, I dont think paying taxes is slavery or even theft either Fair enough, and I can't promise that's exactly what hunts meant, but it is how I read it. Now that we've cleared that up can we clear up how in the world you got to a figure of $16,000+ the tax plan would cost you? Because, while certainly a shocking number, I think it needs more context to be of any value. Well you nailed the context lol. Last year I made a lot of money, I'm single, and my income is capital gains. Bernie's tax plan, on paper, achieves its goal, making me pay my "fair share" So you're complaining about paying $16k out of hundreds of thousands of dollars (that's not even for work you did) so that people don't die and expecting sympathy? I just feel there's gotta be more to this? First of all, I dont recall complaining. I just stated that it would affect me (I thought hunts was saying it only affects the super rich) Second of all, I did work for it. Not sure what you mean there. Third of all, I don't believe the leftist healthcare model is a good thing and it will eventually just fuck the poor people over more than they already get fucked. But that is another topic. Anyways, I honestly don't care that much. My point was simply that Bernie's tax policy would affect people other than the super rich. Sorry it was fiwifaki that was complaining (likening taxation to slavery), and Bisu "fighting" the taxes, you (as I noted in my edit) we're making the argument that the bar for the "super-rich was comically low", I disagree that being in the top richest 1% income in the wealthiest country on the planet is "comically low", what's your argument that it is? Capital gains taxes aren't on (payment for) work, they're on transfer of assets, is what I meant btw. wtf is a humble brag dude
I was just responding to some guy who I thought was saying that it's delusional to think that Bernie's tax policy wouldnt affect any of us...that it only affects the super rich
Bernie always talks about going after the super rich. Does the super rich include doctors, lawyers, small business owners and pharmacists? A humble brag: an ostensibly modest or self-deprecating statement whose actual purpose is to draw attention to something of which one is proud. That you were talking about how much you'd pay in taxes (ostensibly modest, especially since you haven't shared the income that tax is derived from) when really you are proud that you "earned" that income. In quotes because I have no idea what you did other than it wasn't taxed as labor. The situation you described yourself isn't one of those professions because they don't pay capital gains tax on the majority of their income. Except maybe lawyers? and "pharmacists" making that kinda money probably aren't paying any taxes, if you know what I mean? The mistake seems not to be that it would only impact people that could reasonably be called "super rich", but that we didn't have someone (probably several) like that here. I trade for a living, meaning I pay short term capital gains tax on my profits. Short term capital gains tax is the same rate as income tax a doctor or lawyer would pay. Since effort was involved in making that money, I'd say I earned it. I know a pharmacist couple who together make over 400k, and non-retail non-hospital pharmacists can make in that range as well. Would this discussion make a difference to you if I made my money as a doctor? Like trading stocks? If so, I don't want you to take it personally, but I don't consider that "work" in the same sense I consider what a doctor or plumber do "work" or "earning". So yes it would make a difference.
Just because he has one of the very few professions that contribute nothing to society and whose impact on the economy is slightly negative doesn't mean... sorry, I don't know where I was going with this.
|
On May 09 2019 15:39 Starlightsun wrote:
Hoping gabbard is as antiwar as she sells herself as. She seems to have fairly thoughtful responses in interviews I've seen with her. It's frustrating when candidates can give nothing but canned, evasive non answers. Yang seems refreshing in this respect as well. Will be easier to follow when the field thins out some.
Yang has policies other than the single policy he is campaigning on? I don't see how that is refreshing, and frankly I'm sick of the excess and undue praise he receives. I believe there is a bias towards supporting him on sites like TL where the majority of gamers are Asians and are probably supporting him solely due to race and wanting to see Asians do well due to being bullied / suffering racism in school rather than because they think he actually has any sort of political competency or abilities to lead the country.
|
On May 09 2019 16:33 Bourgeois wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2019 15:39 Starlightsun wrote:
Hoping gabbard is as antiwar as she sells herself as. She seems to have fairly thoughtful responses in interviews I've seen with her. It's frustrating when candidates can give nothing but canned, evasive non answers. Yang seems refreshing in this respect as well. Will be easier to follow when the field thins out some. Yang has policies other than the single policy he is campaigning on? I don't see how that is refreshing, and frankly I'm sick of the excess and undue praise he receives. I believe there is a bias towards supporting him on sites like TL where the majority of gamers are Asians and are probably supporting him solely due to race and wanting to see Asians do well due to being bullied / suffering racism in school rather than because they think he actually has any sort of political competency or abilities to lead the country.
Holy reach, Batman.
Have you even bothered looking at his website?
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/
+ Show Spoiler +
End Bidding Wars for Corporate Relocation
Preservation of Public Lands and Water
Timing of Payments for Small Businesses
Data as a Property Right
Reduce Wildfires
Control the Cost of Prescription Drugs
Restoration of Voting Rights
Crypto/Digital Asset Regulation and Consumer Protection
Proportional Selection of Electors
Expand Selective Schools
Automatic Voter Registration
Grid Modernization Race to the Top
Head of Culture and Ceremony
Make Washington, DC, a State
End Partisan Gerrymandering
Reduce Packaging Waste
Public Council of Advisors
Quantum Computing and Encryption Standards
The Penny Makes No Cents
Make Election Day a Holiday
Empowering MMA Fighters
18 Year Term Limit for Supreme Court Justices
Revive the Office of Technology Assessment
Lower the Voting Age to 16
Decrease Pre-Trial Cash Bail
Extend Daylight Saving Time All Year
Relocate Federal Agencies
Democracy Dollars
Ranked Choice Voting
Decriminalize Opioids
The Freedom Dividend
Combat Climate Change
Reduce Mass Incarceration
Opioid Crisis
LGBTQ Rights
Foreign Policy First Principles
Gun Safety
Paid Family Leave
Support for the Arts
Control the Cost of Higher Education
Pathway to Citizenship for Undocumented Immigrants
Southern Border Security
Support the DREAM Act
Right to Privacy/Abortion and Contraception
Campaign Finance Reform
Fight for Equal Pay
Promote Vocational Education
Carbon Fee and Dividend
Increase Teacher Salaries
Early Childhood Education for All
Legalize Marijuana
Make Puerto Rico a State
Value-Added Tax
Hold Pharmaceutical Companies Accountable
Human-Centered Capitalism
Invest in America’s Mental Health
American Journalism Fellows
News and Information Ombudsman
Reduce Harm to Children Caused by Smartphones
Every Cop Gets a Camera
NCAA Should Pay Athletes
Nuclear Launch Decisions
Limit Bureaucracy in the Federal Workforce
Local Journalism Fund
Provide Basic Banking Services through the Post Office
American Exchange Program
Prevent Corruption among Federal Regulators
Closely Monitor Mental Health of White House Staff
Free Marriage Counseling for All
Automatically Sunset Old Laws
Prosperity Grants
Prevent Airlines from Removing Customers
Improve the American Scorecard
Increase Assistance for Single Parents
Fund Medical Technology Innovation
Fund Autism Intervention
Rebuild American Infrastructure
Reduce Student Loan Burden
Expand Access to Medical Experts
Support the Revival of Earmarks
Medicare for All
Make it Easier to Save for Retirement
Free Financial Counseling for All
Make Community College Affordable for All
Life-Skills Education in All High Schools
Modernize Military Spending
Make it Easy for Americans to Move for Work
Implement Mandatory Paid Leave Policy
Ease the Transition to Self-Driving Vehicles
Capital Gain/Carried Interest Tax
File Income Taxes
Financial Transaction Tax
Tort Reform/Reasonableness Dismissals
American Mall Act
Entice High-Skill Individuals
Zoning
Algorithmic Trading/Fraud
Nuclear Energy
Modernize Voting
Modern Time Banking
Economic Crime
Media Fragmentation
Making Taxes Fun
Net Neutrality
Regulate AI and other Emerging Technologies
Robo-Calling Text Line
|
On May 09 2019 16:05 opisska wrote:
Excuse me again for my ignorance and laziness, but another quick question: is Bernie singular in his "leftist" policies, or are there any nominees running on high progressive taxation, universal healthcare and free education?
Quite a few are, most notably Elizabeth Warren who arguably has a more solid model of how we can realistically afford the proposed Universal X and Free Y ideas than Bernie. Bernie running on these platforms in 2016 really normalized a lot of this discussion so that a lot of the Democratic primary nominees for 2020 have been pulled more to the left than some moderates would like. I think even having these discussions to begin with is a step in the right direction.
Also, keep in mind that "free education" is a bit of a misnomer... plenty of tax dollars get allocated towards education.
|
On May 09 2019 16:33 Bourgeois wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2019 15:39 Starlightsun wrote:
Hoping gabbard is as antiwar as she sells herself as. She seems to have fairly thoughtful responses in interviews I've seen with her. It's frustrating when candidates can give nothing but canned, evasive non answers. Yang seems refreshing in this respect as well. Will be easier to follow when the field thins out some. Yang has policies other than the single policy he is campaigning on? I don't see how that is refreshing, and frankly I'm sick of the excess and undue praise he receives. I believe there is a bias towards supporting him on sites like TL where the majority of gamers are Asians and are probably supporting him solely due to race and wanting to see Asians do well due to being bullied / suffering racism in school rather than because they think he actually has any sort of political competency or abilities to lead the country.
Where on TL does he recieve praise? He is and was pretty much a no show on this website.
|
On May 09 2019 20:18 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2019 16:33 Bourgeois wrote:On May 09 2019 15:39 Starlightsun wrote:
Hoping gabbard is as antiwar as she sells herself as. She seems to have fairly thoughtful responses in interviews I've seen with her. It's frustrating when candidates can give nothing but canned, evasive non answers. Yang seems refreshing in this respect as well. Will be easier to follow when the field thins out some. Yang has policies other than the single policy he is campaigning on? I don't see how that is refreshing, and frankly I'm sick of the excess and undue praise he receives. I believe there is a bias towards supporting him on sites like TL where the majority of gamers are Asians and are probably supporting him solely due to race and wanting to see Asians do well due to being bullied / suffering racism in school rather than because they think he actually has any sort of political competency or abilities to lead the country. Where on TL does he recieve praise? He is and was pretty much a no show on this website.
I think he got a bit of attention for his UBI beliefs, but mostly that wound up with people being skeptical of cutting social prog and to fund it and people just being happy that he's at least getting the idea out into the mainstream a la Bernie and progressive ideals.
Doesn't seem like he's many people's first choice, more does he likely have much of a chance to win.
EDIT: Oh and I think there wound up being a thing about accelerationists supporting him which seemed to be a turn off.
|
Bisutopia19299 Posts
On May 09 2019 16:05 opisska wrote:
Excuse me again for my ignorance and laziness, but another quick question: is Bernie singular in his "leftist" policies, or are there any nominees running on high progressive taxation, universal healthcare and free education?
My perception, which may not be correct, is that the leading candidates are in the majority far left and stray away from core liberal politics. I was seriously going to pose the opposite question. Are there any candidates running as liberals instead of leftists? if so please name them and what separates their plan of attack from others.
|
On May 09 2019 13:33 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2019 13:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 12:58 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 12:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 12:27 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 05:25 hunts wrote:On May 08 2019 13:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:On May 08 2019 09:50 Plansix wrote:
Also, why the hell do I care about what rich people lose out on? They don’t care about me and my problems. Nobody cares about you or your problems. I want the law to be just to me, so I want it to be just for everybody who's important to me, anyone I might become, and in general, everyone. I think taking a lot of money away from someone who works hard is not right. Currently, I'm not in a relationship, and don't have kids, it's a conscious decision I made to focus all my energy on my career... I didn't have some special head start, I did my analysis, and thought I'd be better off working hard, saving up a lot of money, and living off my investments a decade down the road... Then I can think about a family and whatnot. Simply because choosing this life and making good money I need to pay a significantly higher portion of my income to taxes. In my situation, it doesn't really equalize anything, both of my theoretical selves had the same option. Anyway, I think the highest tax bracket when considering every form of taxing for any product should never be more than 50%, and right now the US exceeds that when you add up income, state, sales, and sin taxes on certain products. It's like modern day slavery, someone gets the majority of your benefit of your hard work. Just a few weeks ago we hired a few temps through an employment agency, and they got paid $15/h while we paid the agency $38/h, it made me so angry, injustices like that should never be allowed to happen. It's way worse than brothels to me, because they take way more of your money, and not only are you giving them your body to use, but you're required to use much more of your body in performing fatiguing work. At the end of the day, I view the problem of taxation as all forms of government combined should receive 20-25% of the GDP, taxes should never be raised above those levels, any higher and the country is trying to tax outside of its means. People get too caught up on whether the net tax rate should be 25% or 35%, then this is what we squabble about in politics... Versus just increasing the GDP of the economy by 40% and having the same tax base, and a lot more happier people. Always when discussing tax rates, the differences are so minor it's not worth the energy to discuss, just focus all your effort on technological innovation, and more money will come in. If you think you're making enough or going to make enough for a tax on the super rich to effect you then you've got some real delusions of grander. Tax brackets exist for a reason, and if you think taxation is slavery and your money is unjustly taken, you best stop using all public roads, freeways, don't deal with anyone who went to any public school, and don't call the cops or fire department or ambulance when something goes wrong. I went on Bernie Sanders' website and typed my 2018 income and health insurance cost in his calculator. According to that, I'd have $8836 less per year thanks to his tax policy (probably more tbh), and I'm not "super rich" am I missing something here, or is the bar for "super rich" set comically low? You're talking about different taxes. How in the world did you manage to get $8836 less per year? I don't think I am talking about different taxes. Hunts mentioned "make enough" and "tax brackets" which refers to income tax lol Also, like i suspected, it is more than 8k for me I went to Bernie's advanced calculator, and filled it out with more details. Turns out I'd lose $16k if I made the same amount of money as I did in 2018 lol. So the amount I lose out on doubles because my income is non-wage lol. Hunts was talking responding to the 50% rate which would only be on money after the highest bracket, not money before. You're talking about a more general tax plan related to healthcare. They may overlap but are also distinct. Is this supposed to be a humble brag? Because the only way I can figure out you'd get a number like that is with an income that was more than 99% of people in the country (most people consider this pretty rich, like the 99% that don't have it). In which case I don't care if you lose $16k you're confident you "earned" To Faki's point that sure as hell isn't "modern day slavery", it's the prison industrial complex that comes closest to that in the US. Faki said that when you include all forms of tax, including state, sales, property, etc, that it is over 50% for a lot of well off people. So I assumed that was what they were talking about. I only brought it up because I was (perhaps mistakenly) under the impression that hunts was saying that some of these Democrat tax plans wouldnt affect anybody here - that they'd only affect the super rich. And even though I'm a libertarian, I dont think paying taxes is slavery or even theft either
Including sales tax when talking about raising taxes on the super rich is pretty pointless though, as sales taxes are very regressive in nature. Property taxes maybe you can add, but at the same time most of the super rich either use properties to make them more money by leasing or flipping, or just have so much more money than the property is worth that they don't care.
|
On May 09 2019 23:45 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2019 16:05 opisska wrote:
Excuse me again for my ignorance and laziness, but another quick question: is Bernie singular in his "leftist" policies, or are there any nominees running on high progressive taxation, universal healthcare and free education? My perception, which may not be correct, is that the leading candidates are in the majority far left and stray away from core liberal politics. I was seriously going to pose the opposite question. Are there any candidates running as liberals instead of leftists? if so please name them and what separates their plan of attack from others.
Biden might just be the only popular Democrat who is running as a moderate liberal... His message is to go back to a pre-Trump (read as: Obama) era, since that's when he was relevant, rather than a progressive post-Trump era. I'd be shocked if he pushes for the amount of reform that Bernie or Warren or others are pushing for.
And that will probably win him the primary, sadly; almost all the moderate Democrats will vote for him, whereas the large number of truly progressive opponents will split and dilute the progressive voters.
|
On May 10 2019 03:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2019 23:45 BisuDagger wrote:On May 09 2019 16:05 opisska wrote:
Excuse me again for my ignorance and laziness, but another quick question: is Bernie singular in his "leftist" policies, or are there any nominees running on high progressive taxation, universal healthcare and free education? My perception, which may not be correct, is that the leading candidates are in the majority far left and stray away from core liberal politics. I was seriously going to pose the opposite question. Are there any candidates running as liberals instead of leftists? if so please name them and what separates their plan of attack from others. Biden might just be the only popular Democrat who is running as a moderate liberal... His message is to go back to a pre-Trump (read as: Obama) era, since that's when he was relevant, rather than a progressive post-Trump era. I'd be shocked if he pushes for the amount of reform that Bernie or Warren or others are pushing for. And that will probably win him the primary, sadly; almost all the moderate Democrats will vote for him, whereas the large number of truly progressive opponents will split and dilute the progressive voters.
Isn't there a tendency for people to give up later in the race and "donate" their candidates to more successful similarly-minded candidates? Or are there too many winner-takes-it-all states along the way for this to be a problem already state-by-state?
|
On May 09 2019 15:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2019 14:59 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 14:23 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 14:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 14:01 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 13:33 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 13:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 12:58 BerserkSword wrote:
[quote]
I don't think I am talking about different taxes.
Hunts mentioned "make enough" and "tax brackets" which refers to income tax lol
Also, like i suspected, it is more than 8k for me
I went to Bernie's advanced calculator, and filled it out with more details. Turns out I'd lose $16k if I made the same amount of money as I did in 2018 lol. So the amount I lose out on doubles because my income is non-wage lol.
Hunts was talking responding to the 50% rate which would only be on money after the highest bracket, not money before. You're talking about a more general tax plan related to healthcare. They may overlap but are also distinct. Is this supposed to be a humble brag? Because the only way I can figure out you'd get a number like that is with an income that was more than 99% of people in the country (most people consider this pretty rich, like the 99% that don't have it). In which case I don't care if you lose $16k you're confident you "earned" To Faki's point that sure as hell isn't "modern day slavery", it's the prison industrial complex that comes closest to that in the US. Faki said that when you include all forms of tax, including state, sales, property, etc, that it is over 50% for a lot of well off people. So I assumed that was what they were talking about. I only brought it up because I was (perhaps mistakenly) under the impression that hunts was saying that some of these Democrat tax plans wouldnt affect anybody here - that they'd only affect the super rich. And even though I'm a libertarian, I dont think paying taxes is slavery or even theft either Fair enough, and I can't promise that's exactly what hunts meant, but it is how I read it. Now that we've cleared that up can we clear up how in the world you got to a figure of $16,000+ the tax plan would cost you? Because, while certainly a shocking number, I think it needs more context to be of any value. Well you nailed the context lol. Last year I made a lot of money, I'm single, and my income is capital gains. Bernie's tax plan, on paper, achieves its goal, making me pay my "fair share" So you're complaining about paying $16k out of hundreds of thousands of dollars (that's not even for work you did) so that people don't die and expecting sympathy? I just feel there's gotta be more to this? First of all, I dont recall complaining. I just stated that it would affect me (I thought hunts was saying it only affects the super rich) Second of all, I did work for it. Not sure what you mean there. Third of all, I don't believe the leftist healthcare model is a good thing and it will eventually just fuck the poor people over more than they already get fucked. But that is another topic. Anyways, I honestly don't care that much. My point was simply that Bernie's tax policy would affect people other than the super rich. Sorry it was fiwifaki that was complaining (likening taxation to slavery), and Bisu "fighting" the taxes, you (as I noted in my edit) we're making the argument that the bar for the "super-rich was comically low", I disagree that being in the top richest 1% income in the wealthiest country on the planet is "comically low", what's your argument that it is? Capital gains taxes aren't on (payment for) work, they're on transfer of assets, is what I meant btw. wtf is a humble brag dude
I was just responding to some guy who I thought was saying that it's delusional to think that Bernie's tax policy wouldnt affect any of us...that it only affects the super rich
Bernie always talks about going after the super rich. Does the super rich include doctors, lawyers, small business owners and pharmacists? A humble brag: an ostensibly modest or self-deprecating statement whose actual purpose is to draw attention to something of which one is proud. That you were talking about how much you'd pay in taxes (ostensibly modest, especially since you haven't shared the income that tax is derived from) when really you are proud that you "earned" that income. In quotes because I have no idea what you did other than it wasn't taxed as labor. The situation you described yourself isn't one of those professions because they don't pay capital gains tax on the majority of their income. Except maybe lawyers? and "pharmacists" making that kinda money probably aren't paying any taxes, if you know what I mean? The mistake seems not to be that it would only impact people that could reasonably be called "super rich", but that we didn't have someone (probably several) like that here. I trade for a living, meaning I pay short term capital gains tax on my profits. Short term capital gains tax is the same rate as income tax a doctor or lawyer would pay. Since effort was involved in making that money, I'd say I earned it. I know a pharmacist couple who together make over 400k, and non-retail non-hospital pharmacists can make in that range as well. Would this discussion make a difference to you if I made my money as a doctor? Like trading stocks? If so, I don't want you to take it personally, but I don't consider that "work" in the same sense I consider what a doctor or plumber do "work" or "earning". So yes it would make a difference. You're uncomfortable with someone making (i'm being forced to guesstimate here) ~$500,000/yr being called "super rich" (what do you prefer?) I have to ask then how you describe someone making 1/10 of that? Where would you feel the "super rich" label becomes applicable? EDIT: I should mention the source of the capital you use to trade matters as well
Well here's the thing - the government, and most of the democratic candidates even, consider it the same thing and tax it the same way lol
I also entered my info from when I was a practicing physician. I wouldve lost out on 9k a year under Bernie's policy. And it were brutal taxes and increasing non-physician government involvement in the healthcare disaster that caused me to quit medicine in the first place.
I am not uncomfortable with calling people who make around top 1% income super rich, I just find it funny. I don't consider someone working to make a top 1% salary to be super rich.
Let me answer your question with a similar question. If you think the surgeon who went through brutal training for a decade and works 70 hrs a week in a high stress job to make 500k is super rich, what do you call a guy like George Soros?
On May 10 2019 00:39 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2019 13:33 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 13:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 12:58 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 12:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 12:27 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 05:25 hunts wrote:On May 08 2019 13:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:On May 08 2019 09:50 Plansix wrote:
Also, why the hell do I care about what rich people lose out on? They don’t care about me and my problems. Nobody cares about you or your problems. I want the law to be just to me, so I want it to be just for everybody who's important to me, anyone I might become, and in general, everyone. I think taking a lot of money away from someone who works hard is not right. Currently, I'm not in a relationship, and don't have kids, it's a conscious decision I made to focus all my energy on my career... I didn't have some special head start, I did my analysis, and thought I'd be better off working hard, saving up a lot of money, and living off my investments a decade down the road... Then I can think about a family and whatnot. Simply because choosing this life and making good money I need to pay a significantly higher portion of my income to taxes. In my situation, it doesn't really equalize anything, both of my theoretical selves had the same option. Anyway, I think the highest tax bracket when considering every form of taxing for any product should never be more than 50%, and right now the US exceeds that when you add up income, state, sales, and sin taxes on certain products. It's like modern day slavery, someone gets the majority of your benefit of your hard work. Just a few weeks ago we hired a few temps through an employment agency, and they got paid $15/h while we paid the agency $38/h, it made me so angry, injustices like that should never be allowed to happen. It's way worse than brothels to me, because they take way more of your money, and not only are you giving them your body to use, but you're required to use much more of your body in performing fatiguing work. At the end of the day, I view the problem of taxation as all forms of government combined should receive 20-25% of the GDP, taxes should never be raised above those levels, any higher and the country is trying to tax outside of its means. People get too caught up on whether the net tax rate should be 25% or 35%, then this is what we squabble about in politics... Versus just increasing the GDP of the economy by 40% and having the same tax base, and a lot more happier people. Always when discussing tax rates, the differences are so minor it's not worth the energy to discuss, just focus all your effort on technological innovation, and more money will come in. If you think you're making enough or going to make enough for a tax on the super rich to effect you then you've got some real delusions of grander. Tax brackets exist for a reason, and if you think taxation is slavery and your money is unjustly taken, you best stop using all public roads, freeways, don't deal with anyone who went to any public school, and don't call the cops or fire department or ambulance when something goes wrong. I went on Bernie Sanders' website and typed my 2018 income and health insurance cost in his calculator. According to that, I'd have $8836 less per year thanks to his tax policy (probably more tbh), and I'm not "super rich" am I missing something here, or is the bar for "super rich" set comically low? You're talking about different taxes. How in the world did you manage to get $8836 less per year? I don't think I am talking about different taxes. Hunts mentioned "make enough" and "tax brackets" which refers to income tax lol Also, like i suspected, it is more than 8k for me I went to Bernie's advanced calculator, and filled it out with more details. Turns out I'd lose $16k if I made the same amount of money as I did in 2018 lol. So the amount I lose out on doubles because my income is non-wage lol. Hunts was talking responding to the 50% rate which would only be on money after the highest bracket, not money before. You're talking about a more general tax plan related to healthcare. They may overlap but are also distinct. Is this supposed to be a humble brag? Because the only way I can figure out you'd get a number like that is with an income that was more than 99% of people in the country (most people consider this pretty rich, like the 99% that don't have it). In which case I don't care if you lose $16k you're confident you "earned" To Faki's point that sure as hell isn't "modern day slavery", it's the prison industrial complex that comes closest to that in the US. Faki said that when you include all forms of tax, including state, sales, property, etc, that it is over 50% for a lot of well off people. So I assumed that was what they were talking about. I only brought it up because I was (perhaps mistakenly) under the impression that hunts was saying that some of these Democrat tax plans wouldnt affect anybody here - that they'd only affect the super rich. And even though I'm a libertarian, I dont think paying taxes is slavery or even theft either Including sales tax when talking about raising taxes on the super rich is pretty pointless though, as sales taxes are very regressive in nature. Property taxes maybe you can add, but at the same time most of the super rich either use properties to make them more money by leasing or flipping, or just have so much more money than the property is worth that they don't care.
Yea I know it's pointless. I thought that's what you guys were talking about though.
The fact still remains that Bernie's policies will affect people who are not "super rich"
|
On May 10 2019 06:28 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2019 15:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 14:59 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 14:23 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 14:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 14:01 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 13:33 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 13:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Hunts was talking responding to the 50% rate which would only be on money after the highest bracket, not money before. You're talking about a more general tax plan related to healthcare. They may overlap but are also distinct.
Is this supposed to be a humble brag? Because the only way I can figure out you'd get a number like that is with an income that was more than 99% of people in the country (most people consider this pretty rich, like the 99% that don't have it). In which case I don't care if you lose $16k you're confident you "earned"
To Faki's point that sure as hell isn't "modern day slavery", it's the prison industrial complex that comes closest to that in the US. Faki said that when you include all forms of tax, including state, sales, property, etc, that it is over 50% for a lot of well off people. So I assumed that was what they were talking about. I only brought it up because I was (perhaps mistakenly) under the impression that hunts was saying that some of these Democrat tax plans wouldnt affect anybody here - that they'd only affect the super rich. And even though I'm a libertarian, I dont think paying taxes is slavery or even theft either Fair enough, and I can't promise that's exactly what hunts meant, but it is how I read it. Now that we've cleared that up can we clear up how in the world you got to a figure of $16,000+ the tax plan would cost you? Because, while certainly a shocking number, I think it needs more context to be of any value. Well you nailed the context lol. Last year I made a lot of money, I'm single, and my income is capital gains. Bernie's tax plan, on paper, achieves its goal, making me pay my "fair share" So you're complaining about paying $16k out of hundreds of thousands of dollars (that's not even for work you did) so that people don't die and expecting sympathy? I just feel there's gotta be more to this? First of all, I dont recall complaining. I just stated that it would affect me (I thought hunts was saying it only affects the super rich) Second of all, I did work for it. Not sure what you mean there. Third of all, I don't believe the leftist healthcare model is a good thing and it will eventually just fuck the poor people over more than they already get fucked. But that is another topic. Anyways, I honestly don't care that much. My point was simply that Bernie's tax policy would affect people other than the super rich. Sorry it was fiwifaki that was complaining (likening taxation to slavery), and Bisu "fighting" the taxes, you (as I noted in my edit) we're making the argument that the bar for the "super-rich was comically low", I disagree that being in the top richest 1% income in the wealthiest country on the planet is "comically low", what's your argument that it is? Capital gains taxes aren't on (payment for) work, they're on transfer of assets, is what I meant btw. wtf is a humble brag dude
I was just responding to some guy who I thought was saying that it's delusional to think that Bernie's tax policy wouldnt affect any of us...that it only affects the super rich
Bernie always talks about going after the super rich. Does the super rich include doctors, lawyers, small business owners and pharmacists? A humble brag: an ostensibly modest or self-deprecating statement whose actual purpose is to draw attention to something of which one is proud. That you were talking about how much you'd pay in taxes (ostensibly modest, especially since you haven't shared the income that tax is derived from) when really you are proud that you "earned" that income. In quotes because I have no idea what you did other than it wasn't taxed as labor. The situation you described yourself isn't one of those professions because they don't pay capital gains tax on the majority of their income. Except maybe lawyers? and "pharmacists" making that kinda money probably aren't paying any taxes, if you know what I mean? The mistake seems not to be that it would only impact people that could reasonably be called "super rich", but that we didn't have someone (probably several) like that here. I trade for a living, meaning I pay short term capital gains tax on my profits. Short term capital gains tax is the same rate as income tax a doctor or lawyer would pay. Since effort was involved in making that money, I'd say I earned it. I know a pharmacist couple who together make over 400k, and non-retail non-hospital pharmacists can make in that range as well. Would this discussion make a difference to you if I made my money as a doctor? Like trading stocks? If so, I don't want you to take it personally, but I don't consider that "work" in the same sense I consider what a doctor or plumber do "work" or "earning". So yes it would make a difference. You're uncomfortable with someone making (i'm being forced to guesstimate here) ~$500,000/yr being called "super rich" (what do you prefer?) I have to ask then how you describe someone making 1/10 of that? Where would you feel the "super rich" label becomes applicable? EDIT: I should mention the source of the capital you use to trade matters as well Well here's the thing - the government, and most of the democratic candidates even, consider it the same thing and tax it the same way lol I also entered my info from when I was a practicing physician. I wouldve lost out on 9k a year under Bernie's policy. And it were brutal taxes and increasing non-physician government involvement in the healthcare disaster that caused me to quit medicine in the first place. I am not uncomfortable with calling people who make around top 1% income super rich, I just find it funny. I don't consider someone working to make a top 1% salary to be super rich. Let me answer your question with a similar question. If you think the surgeon who went through brutal training for a decade and works 70 hrs a week in a high stress job to make 500k is super rich, what do you call a guy like George Soros? Yea I know it's pointless. I thought that's what you guys were talking about though. The fact still remains that Bernie's policies will affect people who are not "super rich"
You're probably unfamiliar but I'm far left of the Democrats so I agree that's silly.
There's a lot to why I think that 9k less as a physician is fine too but I'm not sure you're interested in that? I'd start with doctors shouldn't have student debt (because their education was basically free [through taxation] for them) rather than just people who were fortunate enough to have circumstances (including self-determination) that got them there. Also they'd already be near the top end of income (presuming we're talking about Emergency/critical care physicians and not some guy with a private casual clinical practice). There would be no individual with the type of wealth Bezos or Soros have if I had my way
I don't get the joke?
I'd again distinguish a thoroughly trained doctor working 70 hours a week (sounds like we're not talking pediatrician, though on second thought this is probably pretty stressful) and a stock trader, but still be comfortable labeling them super rich and don't see the humor?
I call them oligarchs. Now do mine?
|
On May 10 2019 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2019 06:28 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 15:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 14:59 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 14:23 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 14:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 14:01 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 13:33 BerserkSword wrote:
[quote]
Faki said that when you include all forms of tax, including state, sales, property, etc, that it is over 50% for a lot of well off people. So I assumed that was what they were talking about.
I only brought it up because I was (perhaps mistakenly) under the impression that hunts was saying that some of these Democrat tax plans wouldnt affect anybody here - that they'd only affect the super rich.
And even though I'm a libertarian, I dont think paying taxes is slavery or even theft either
Fair enough, and I can't promise that's exactly what hunts meant, but it is how I read it. Now that we've cleared that up can we clear up how in the world you got to a figure of $16,000+ the tax plan would cost you? Because, while certainly a shocking number, I think it needs more context to be of any value. Well you nailed the context lol. Last year I made a lot of money, I'm single, and my income is capital gains. Bernie's tax plan, on paper, achieves its goal, making me pay my "fair share" So you're complaining about paying $16k out of hundreds of thousands of dollars (that's not even for work you did) so that people don't die and expecting sympathy? I just feel there's gotta be more to this? First of all, I dont recall complaining. I just stated that it would affect me (I thought hunts was saying it only affects the super rich) Second of all, I did work for it. Not sure what you mean there. Third of all, I don't believe the leftist healthcare model is a good thing and it will eventually just fuck the poor people over more than they already get fucked. But that is another topic. Anyways, I honestly don't care that much. My point was simply that Bernie's tax policy would affect people other than the super rich. Sorry it was fiwifaki that was complaining (likening taxation to slavery), and Bisu "fighting" the taxes, you (as I noted in my edit) we're making the argument that the bar for the "super-rich was comically low", I disagree that being in the top richest 1% income in the wealthiest country on the planet is "comically low", what's your argument that it is? Capital gains taxes aren't on (payment for) work, they're on transfer of assets, is what I meant btw. wtf is a humble brag dude
I was just responding to some guy who I thought was saying that it's delusional to think that Bernie's tax policy wouldnt affect any of us...that it only affects the super rich
Bernie always talks about going after the super rich. Does the super rich include doctors, lawyers, small business owners and pharmacists? A humble brag: an ostensibly modest or self-deprecating statement whose actual purpose is to draw attention to something of which one is proud. That you were talking about how much you'd pay in taxes (ostensibly modest, especially since you haven't shared the income that tax is derived from) when really you are proud that you "earned" that income. In quotes because I have no idea what you did other than it wasn't taxed as labor. The situation you described yourself isn't one of those professions because they don't pay capital gains tax on the majority of their income. Except maybe lawyers? and "pharmacists" making that kinda money probably aren't paying any taxes, if you know what I mean? The mistake seems not to be that it would only impact people that could reasonably be called "super rich", but that we didn't have someone (probably several) like that here. I trade for a living, meaning I pay short term capital gains tax on my profits. Short term capital gains tax is the same rate as income tax a doctor or lawyer would pay. Since effort was involved in making that money, I'd say I earned it. I know a pharmacist couple who together make over 400k, and non-retail non-hospital pharmacists can make in that range as well. Would this discussion make a difference to you if I made my money as a doctor? Like trading stocks? If so, I don't want you to take it personally, but I don't consider that "work" in the same sense I consider what a doctor or plumber do "work" or "earning". So yes it would make a difference. You're uncomfortable with someone making (i'm being forced to guesstimate here) ~$500,000/yr being called "super rich" (what do you prefer?) I have to ask then how you describe someone making 1/10 of that? Where would you feel the "super rich" label becomes applicable? EDIT: I should mention the source of the capital you use to trade matters as well Well here's the thing - the government, and most of the democratic candidates even, consider it the same thing and tax it the same way lol I also entered my info from when I was a practicing physician. I wouldve lost out on 9k a year under Bernie's policy. And it were brutal taxes and increasing non-physician government involvement in the healthcare disaster that caused me to quit medicine in the first place. I am not uncomfortable with calling people who make around top 1% income super rich, I just find it funny. I don't consider someone working to make a top 1% salary to be super rich. Let me answer your question with a similar question. If you think the surgeon who went through brutal training for a decade and works 70 hrs a week in a high stress job to make 500k is super rich, what do you call a guy like George Soros? Yea I know it's pointless. I thought that's what you guys were talking about though. The fact still remains that Bernie's policies will affect people who are not "super rich" You're probably unfamiliar but I'm far left of the Democrats so I agree that's silly. There's a lot to why I think that 9k less as a physician is fine too but I'm not sure you're interested in that? I'd start with doctors shouldn't have student debt (because their education was basically free [through taxation] for them) rather than just people who were fortunate enough to have circumstances (including self-determination) that got them there. I don't get the joke? I'd again distinguish a thoroughly trained doctor working 70 hours a week (sounds like we're not talking pediatrician) and a stock trader, but still be comfortable labeling them super rich and don't see the humor? I call them oligarchs. Now do mine?
Now that I know how far left you are I understand your philosophy.
Are you saying that you'd rather medical school be free, or that it is free. Because in the U.S. medical school isnt free....it's expensive as hell lol. And as far as I know Bernier isnt planning on making med school free.
I find it funny that people have no qualms about squeezing every last drop out of hard working people who sacrifice, and take risks, on the basis of grouping them with a completely different category of people. As if your neighborhood urologist is scheming with George Soros on how to manipulate the British Pound.
There must be incentive to do things.
I call a guy making 500k a year rich, and a guy making 50k a year middle class
|
On May 10 2019 07:37 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2019 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 10 2019 06:28 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 15:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 14:59 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 14:23 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 14:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 14:01 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Fair enough, and I can't promise that's exactly what hunts meant, but it is how I read it.
Now that we've cleared that up can we clear up how in the world you got to a figure of $16,000+ the tax plan would cost you? Because, while certainly a shocking number, I think it needs more context to be of any value. Well you nailed the context lol. Last year I made a lot of money, I'm single, and my income is capital gains. Bernie's tax plan, on paper, achieves its goal, making me pay my "fair share" So you're complaining about paying $16k out of hundreds of thousands of dollars (that's not even for work you did) so that people don't die and expecting sympathy? I just feel there's gotta be more to this? First of all, I dont recall complaining. I just stated that it would affect me (I thought hunts was saying it only affects the super rich) Second of all, I did work for it. Not sure what you mean there. Third of all, I don't believe the leftist healthcare model is a good thing and it will eventually just fuck the poor people over more than they already get fucked. But that is another topic. Anyways, I honestly don't care that much. My point was simply that Bernie's tax policy would affect people other than the super rich. Sorry it was fiwifaki that was complaining (likening taxation to slavery), and Bisu "fighting" the taxes, you (as I noted in my edit) we're making the argument that the bar for the "super-rich was comically low", I disagree that being in the top richest 1% income in the wealthiest country on the planet is "comically low", what's your argument that it is? Capital gains taxes aren't on (payment for) work, they're on transfer of assets, is what I meant btw. wtf is a humble brag dude
I was just responding to some guy who I thought was saying that it's delusional to think that Bernie's tax policy wouldnt affect any of us...that it only affects the super rich
Bernie always talks about going after the super rich. Does the super rich include doctors, lawyers, small business owners and pharmacists? A humble brag: an ostensibly modest or self-deprecating statement whose actual purpose is to draw attention to something of which one is proud. That you were talking about how much you'd pay in taxes (ostensibly modest, especially since you haven't shared the income that tax is derived from) when really you are proud that you "earned" that income. In quotes because I have no idea what you did other than it wasn't taxed as labor. The situation you described yourself isn't one of those professions because they don't pay capital gains tax on the majority of their income. Except maybe lawyers? and "pharmacists" making that kinda money probably aren't paying any taxes, if you know what I mean? The mistake seems not to be that it would only impact people that could reasonably be called "super rich", but that we didn't have someone (probably several) like that here. I trade for a living, meaning I pay short term capital gains tax on my profits. Short term capital gains tax is the same rate as income tax a doctor or lawyer would pay. Since effort was involved in making that money, I'd say I earned it. I know a pharmacist couple who together make over 400k, and non-retail non-hospital pharmacists can make in that range as well. Would this discussion make a difference to you if I made my money as a doctor? Like trading stocks? If so, I don't want you to take it personally, but I don't consider that "work" in the same sense I consider what a doctor or plumber do "work" or "earning". So yes it would make a difference. You're uncomfortable with someone making (i'm being forced to guesstimate here) ~$500,000/yr being called "super rich" (what do you prefer?) I have to ask then how you describe someone making 1/10 of that? Where would you feel the "super rich" label becomes applicable? EDIT: I should mention the source of the capital you use to trade matters as well Well here's the thing - the government, and most of the democratic candidates even, consider it the same thing and tax it the same way lol I also entered my info from when I was a practicing physician. I wouldve lost out on 9k a year under Bernie's policy. And it were brutal taxes and increasing non-physician government involvement in the healthcare disaster that caused me to quit medicine in the first place. I am not uncomfortable with calling people who make around top 1% income super rich, I just find it funny. I don't consider someone working to make a top 1% salary to be super rich. Let me answer your question with a similar question. If you think the surgeon who went through brutal training for a decade and works 70 hrs a week in a high stress job to make 500k is super rich, what do you call a guy like George Soros? Yea I know it's pointless. I thought that's what you guys were talking about though. The fact still remains that Bernie's policies will affect people who are not "super rich" You're probably unfamiliar but I'm far left of the Democrats so I agree that's silly. There's a lot to why I think that 9k less as a physician is fine too but I'm not sure you're interested in that? I'd start with doctors shouldn't have student debt (because their education was basically free [through taxation] for them) rather than just people who were fortunate enough to have circumstances (including self-determination) that got them there. I don't get the joke? I'd again distinguish a thoroughly trained doctor working 70 hours a week (sounds like we're not talking pediatrician) and a stock trader, but still be comfortable labeling them super rich and don't see the humor? I call them oligarchs. Now do mine? Now that I know how far left you are I understand your philosophy. Are you saying that you'd rather medical school be free, or that it is free. Because in the U.S. medical school isnt free....it's expensive as hell lol. And as far as I know Bernier isnt planning on making med school free. I find it funny that people have no qualms about squeezing every last drop out of hard working people who sacrifice, and take risks, on the basis of grouping them with a completely different category of people. As if your neighborhood urologist is scheming with George Soros on how to manipulate the British Pound. There must be incentive to do things. I call a guy making 500k a year rich, and a guy making 50k a year middle class
Should be, lots of people are stopped from being doctors (contributing to harsh work and study conditions) based on ineffective barriers like how much debt they are willing to take on or how wealthy their parents were. Bernie is the best of the bad bunch imo but his policy ideas are not interchangeable with mine.
Again I have and do distinguish medical professionals from stock traders and they get their own distinct group.
Urologists aren't conspiring with Soros on the pound, they are simply well paid (less so than stock traders) to ignore the exploitation resulting from capitalism that allows the Georges, Jeffs, Marks, and so on to become oligarchs.
When does someone (an approximation is fine) cross from "rich" to "super rich" from your perspective? It'd also be helpful to know roughly where the end caps of "the middle class" are for you.
It's also helpful to know you weren't objecting to the "rich" part, just the "super"
EDIT: To show I'm not unreasonable or anything let me say I think it's fair to take a position that people should presume Bernie's policies will subtract spendable income from the rich and the super rich (personally I find the "super rich"/"oligarchs" part harder to believe but it's at least what he's saying he wants/his policy is somewhat reflective of).
|
On May 10 2019 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2019 07:37 BerserkSword wrote:On May 10 2019 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 10 2019 06:28 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 15:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 14:59 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 14:23 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 14:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 14:01 BerserkSword wrote:
[quote]
Well you nailed the context lol. Last year I made a lot of money, I'm single, and my income is capital gains. Bernie's tax plan, on paper, achieves its goal, making me pay my "fair share"
So you're complaining about paying $16k out of hundreds of thousands of dollars (that's not even for work you did) so that people don't die and expecting sympathy? I just feel there's gotta be more to this? First of all, I dont recall complaining. I just stated that it would affect me (I thought hunts was saying it only affects the super rich) Second of all, I did work for it. Not sure what you mean there. Third of all, I don't believe the leftist healthcare model is a good thing and it will eventually just fuck the poor people over more than they already get fucked. But that is another topic. Anyways, I honestly don't care that much. My point was simply that Bernie's tax policy would affect people other than the super rich. Sorry it was fiwifaki that was complaining (likening taxation to slavery), and Bisu "fighting" the taxes, you (as I noted in my edit) we're making the argument that the bar for the "super-rich was comically low", I disagree that being in the top richest 1% income in the wealthiest country on the planet is "comically low", what's your argument that it is? Capital gains taxes aren't on (payment for) work, they're on transfer of assets, is what I meant btw. wtf is a humble brag dude
I was just responding to some guy who I thought was saying that it's delusional to think that Bernie's tax policy wouldnt affect any of us...that it only affects the super rich
Bernie always talks about going after the super rich. Does the super rich include doctors, lawyers, small business owners and pharmacists? A humble brag: an ostensibly modest or self-deprecating statement whose actual purpose is to draw attention to something of which one is proud. That you were talking about how much you'd pay in taxes (ostensibly modest, especially since you haven't shared the income that tax is derived from) when really you are proud that you "earned" that income. In quotes because I have no idea what you did other than it wasn't taxed as labor. The situation you described yourself isn't one of those professions because they don't pay capital gains tax on the majority of their income. Except maybe lawyers? and "pharmacists" making that kinda money probably aren't paying any taxes, if you know what I mean? The mistake seems not to be that it would only impact people that could reasonably be called "super rich", but that we didn't have someone (probably several) like that here. I trade for a living, meaning I pay short term capital gains tax on my profits. Short term capital gains tax is the same rate as income tax a doctor or lawyer would pay. Since effort was involved in making that money, I'd say I earned it. I know a pharmacist couple who together make over 400k, and non-retail non-hospital pharmacists can make in that range as well. Would this discussion make a difference to you if I made my money as a doctor? Like trading stocks? If so, I don't want you to take it personally, but I don't consider that "work" in the same sense I consider what a doctor or plumber do "work" or "earning". So yes it would make a difference. You're uncomfortable with someone making (i'm being forced to guesstimate here) ~$500,000/yr being called "super rich" (what do you prefer?) I have to ask then how you describe someone making 1/10 of that? Where would you feel the "super rich" label becomes applicable? EDIT: I should mention the source of the capital you use to trade matters as well Well here's the thing - the government, and most of the democratic candidates even, consider it the same thing and tax it the same way lol I also entered my info from when I was a practicing physician. I wouldve lost out on 9k a year under Bernie's policy. And it were brutal taxes and increasing non-physician government involvement in the healthcare disaster that caused me to quit medicine in the first place. I am not uncomfortable with calling people who make around top 1% income super rich, I just find it funny. I don't consider someone working to make a top 1% salary to be super rich. Let me answer your question with a similar question. If you think the surgeon who went through brutal training for a decade and works 70 hrs a week in a high stress job to make 500k is super rich, what do you call a guy like George Soros? Yea I know it's pointless. I thought that's what you guys were talking about though. The fact still remains that Bernie's policies will affect people who are not "super rich" You're probably unfamiliar but I'm far left of the Democrats so I agree that's silly. There's a lot to why I think that 9k less as a physician is fine too but I'm not sure you're interested in that? I'd start with doctors shouldn't have student debt (because their education was basically free [through taxation] for them) rather than just people who were fortunate enough to have circumstances (including self-determination) that got them there. I don't get the joke? I'd again distinguish a thoroughly trained doctor working 70 hours a week (sounds like we're not talking pediatrician) and a stock trader, but still be comfortable labeling them super rich and don't see the humor? I call them oligarchs. Now do mine? Now that I know how far left you are I understand your philosophy. Are you saying that you'd rather medical school be free, or that it is free. Because in the U.S. medical school isnt free....it's expensive as hell lol. And as far as I know Bernier isnt planning on making med school free. I find it funny that people have no qualms about squeezing every last drop out of hard working people who sacrifice, and take risks, on the basis of grouping them with a completely different category of people. As if your neighborhood urologist is scheming with George Soros on how to manipulate the British Pound. There must be incentive to do things. I call a guy making 500k a year rich, and a guy making 50k a year middle class Should be, lots of people are stopped from being doctors (contributing to harsh work and study conditions) based on ineffective barriers like how much debt they are willing to take on or how wealthy their parents were. Bernie is the best of the bad bunch imo but his policy ideas are not interchangeable with mine. Again I have and do distinguish medical professionals from stock traders and they get their own distinct group. Urologists aren't conspiring with Soros on the pound, they are simply well paid (less so than stock traders) to ignore the exploitation resulting from capitalism that allows the Georges, Jeffs, Marks, and so on to become oligarchs. When does someone (an approximation is fine) cross from "rich" to "super rich" from your perspective? It'd also be helpful to know roughly where the end caps of "the middle class" are for you. It's also helpful to know you weren't objecting to the "rich" part, just the "super" EDIT: To show I'm not unreasonable or anything let me say I think it's fair to take a position that people should presume Bernie's policies will subtract spendable income from the rich and the super rich (personally I find the "super rich"/"oligarchs" part harder to believe but it's at least what he's saying he wants/his policy is somewhat reflective of).
How is unwillingness to take on debt a barrier to becoming a doctor? That's not an outside obstruction, it's the person not wanting it badly enough. I don't have sympathy for people who don't become doctors because they don't want to take on debt. The government will give you enough money for med school if that's what you want and if you have the academic record, and that's what I did...not saying it doesnt suck having a massive debt but that's how the system is at the moment.
Basically the whole country is well paid enough to ignore exploitation going on. This applies to middle class people as well. Even people on welfare continually vote for the same politicians who keep the status quo as long as they get their handouts. This concept doesnt apply to just rich doctors.
The "super rich" doctor, or anyone who earns a high income really, is the perfect target for these exploitative ploys. He's high enough above the general masses to satisfy their thirst for blood, while not so high that he can insulate his money from attack nearly as well as the way the real super rich can. By throwing him to the wolves, they truly rich can also divert attention from themselves. That whole "top 1%" thing is a perfect ploy. It equates your oligarch to a doctor.
I was under the impression that the super rich being discussed were the ones bernie often refers to. The ones who have enough wealth to control the politics and whatnot.
|
On May 10 2019 04:00 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2019 03:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 09 2019 23:45 BisuDagger wrote:On May 09 2019 16:05 opisska wrote:
Excuse me again for my ignorance and laziness, but another quick question: is Bernie singular in his "leftist" policies, or are there any nominees running on high progressive taxation, universal healthcare and free education? My perception, which may not be correct, is that the leading candidates are in the majority far left and stray away from core liberal politics. I was seriously going to pose the opposite question. Are there any candidates running as liberals instead of leftists? if so please name them and what separates their plan of attack from others. Biden might just be the only popular Democrat who is running as a moderate liberal... His message is to go back to a pre-Trump (read as: Obama) era, since that's when he was relevant, rather than a progressive post-Trump era. I'd be shocked if he pushes for the amount of reform that Bernie or Warren or others are pushing for. And that will probably win him the primary, sadly; almost all the moderate Democrats will vote for him, whereas the large number of truly progressive opponents will split and dilute the progressive voters. Isn't there a tendency for people to give up later in the race and "donate" their candidates to more successful similarly-minded candidates? Or are there too many winner-takes-it-all states along the way for this to be a problem already state-by-state?
That's correct, and after the Iowa caucus and Super Tuesday (February/ March 2020), most of the candidates will have dropped out due to just how expensive running a campaign is. Even if there's ~4-6 candidates left- perhaps Biden, Bernie, Pete, Warren, and maybe Harris or Beto or Yang- I think that same dilution will still be sufficiently problematic as more and more states vote in the Democratic primary. For it to not be an issue, almost every other candidate would have to rally behind one specific progressive champion to take on Biden for the primary *before the voting starts*; I think that's very unlikely.
|
On May 10 2019 08:48 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2019 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 10 2019 07:37 BerserkSword wrote:On May 10 2019 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 10 2019 06:28 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 15:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 14:59 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 14:23 BerserkSword wrote:On May 09 2019 14:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
So you're complaining about paying $16k out of hundreds of thousands of dollars (that's not even for work you did) so that people don't die and expecting sympathy?
I just feel there's gotta be more to this?
First of all, I dont recall complaining. I just stated that it would affect me (I thought hunts was saying it only affects the super rich) Second of all, I did work for it. Not sure what you mean there. Third of all, I don't believe the leftist healthcare model is a good thing and it will eventually just fuck the poor people over more than they already get fucked. But that is another topic. Anyways, I honestly don't care that much. My point was simply that Bernie's tax policy would affect people other than the super rich. Sorry it was fiwifaki that was complaining (likening taxation to slavery), and Bisu "fighting" the taxes, you (as I noted in my edit) we're making the argument that the bar for the "super-rich was comically low", I disagree that being in the top richest 1% income in the wealthiest country on the planet is "comically low", what's your argument that it is? Capital gains taxes aren't on (payment for) work, they're on transfer of assets, is what I meant btw. wtf is a humble brag dude
I was just responding to some guy who I thought was saying that it's delusional to think that Bernie's tax policy wouldnt affect any of us...that it only affects the super rich
Bernie always talks about going after the super rich. Does the super rich include doctors, lawyers, small business owners and pharmacists? A humble brag: an ostensibly modest or self-deprecating statement whose actual purpose is to draw attention to something of which one is proud. That you were talking about how much you'd pay in taxes (ostensibly modest, especially since you haven't shared the income that tax is derived from) when really you are proud that you "earned" that income. In quotes because I have no idea what you did other than it wasn't taxed as labor. The situation you described yourself isn't one of those professions because they don't pay capital gains tax on the majority of their income. Except maybe lawyers? and "pharmacists" making that kinda money probably aren't paying any taxes, if you know what I mean? The mistake seems not to be that it would only impact people that could reasonably be called "super rich", but that we didn't have someone (probably several) like that here. I trade for a living, meaning I pay short term capital gains tax on my profits. Short term capital gains tax is the same rate as income tax a doctor or lawyer would pay. Since effort was involved in making that money, I'd say I earned it. I know a pharmacist couple who together make over 400k, and non-retail non-hospital pharmacists can make in that range as well. Would this discussion make a difference to you if I made my money as a doctor? Like trading stocks? If so, I don't want you to take it personally, but I don't consider that "work" in the same sense I consider what a doctor or plumber do "work" or "earning". So yes it would make a difference. You're uncomfortable with someone making (i'm being forced to guesstimate here) ~$500,000/yr being called "super rich" (what do you prefer?) I have to ask then how you describe someone making 1/10 of that? Where would you feel the "super rich" label becomes applicable? EDIT: I should mention the source of the capital you use to trade matters as well Well here's the thing - the government, and most of the democratic candidates even, consider it the same thing and tax it the same way lol I also entered my info from when I was a practicing physician. I wouldve lost out on 9k a year under Bernie's policy. And it were brutal taxes and increasing non-physician government involvement in the healthcare disaster that caused me to quit medicine in the first place. I am not uncomfortable with calling people who make around top 1% income super rich, I just find it funny. I don't consider someone working to make a top 1% salary to be super rich. Let me answer your question with a similar question. If you think the surgeon who went through brutal training for a decade and works 70 hrs a week in a high stress job to make 500k is super rich, what do you call a guy like George Soros? Yea I know it's pointless. I thought that's what you guys were talking about though. The fact still remains that Bernie's policies will affect people who are not "super rich" You're probably unfamiliar but I'm far left of the Democrats so I agree that's silly. There's a lot to why I think that 9k less as a physician is fine too but I'm not sure you're interested in that? I'd start with doctors shouldn't have student debt (because their education was basically free [through taxation] for them) rather than just people who were fortunate enough to have circumstances (including self-determination) that got them there. I don't get the joke? I'd again distinguish a thoroughly trained doctor working 70 hours a week (sounds like we're not talking pediatrician) and a stock trader, but still be comfortable labeling them super rich and don't see the humor? I call them oligarchs. Now do mine? Now that I know how far left you are I understand your philosophy. Are you saying that you'd rather medical school be free, or that it is free. Because in the U.S. medical school isnt free....it's expensive as hell lol. And as far as I know Bernier isnt planning on making med school free. I find it funny that people have no qualms about squeezing every last drop out of hard working people who sacrifice, and take risks, on the basis of grouping them with a completely different category of people. As if your neighborhood urologist is scheming with George Soros on how to manipulate the British Pound. There must be incentive to do things. I call a guy making 500k a year rich, and a guy making 50k a year middle class Should be, lots of people are stopped from being doctors (contributing to harsh work and study conditions) based on ineffective barriers like how much debt they are willing to take on or how wealthy their parents were. Bernie is the best of the bad bunch imo but his policy ideas are not interchangeable with mine. Again I have and do distinguish medical professionals from stock traders and they get their own distinct group. Urologists aren't conspiring with Soros on the pound, they are simply well paid (less so than stock traders) to ignore the exploitation resulting from capitalism that allows the Georges, Jeffs, Marks, and so on to become oligarchs. When does someone (an approximation is fine) cross from "rich" to "super rich" from your perspective? It'd also be helpful to know roughly where the end caps of "the middle class" are for you. It's also helpful to know you weren't objecting to the "rich" part, just the "super" EDIT: To show I'm not unreasonable or anything let me say I think it's fair to take a position that people should presume Bernie's policies will subtract spendable income from the rich and the super rich (personally I find the "super rich"/"oligarchs" part harder to believe but it's at least what he's saying he wants/his policy is somewhat reflective of). How is unwillingness to take on debt a barrier to becoming a doctor? That's not an outside obstruction, it's the person not wanting it badly enough. I don't have sympathy for people who don't become doctors because they don't want to take on debt. The government will give you enough money for med school if that's what you want and if you have the academic record, and that's what I did...not saying it doesnt suck having a massive debt but that's how the system is at the moment. Basically the whole country is well paid enough to ignore exploitation going on. This applies to middle class people as well. Even people on welfare continually vote for the same politicians who keep the status quo as long as they get their handouts. This concept doesnt apply to just rich doctors. The "super rich" doctor, or anyone who earns a high income really, is the perfect target for these exploitative ploys. He's high enough above the general masses to satisfy their thirst for blood, while not so high that he can insulate his money from attack nearly as well as the way the real super rich can. By throwing him to the wolves, they truly rich can also divert attention from themselves. That whole "top 1%" thing is a perfect ploy. It equates your oligarch to a doctor. I was under the impression that the super rich being discussed were the ones bernie often refers to. The ones who have enough wealth to control the politics and whatnot.
How is unwillingness to take on debt a barrier to becoming a doctor?
There are less capable people that don't have to take on debt to be a doctor. Making debt a barrier not all doctors face.
I don't have sympathy for people who don't become doctors because they don't want to take on debt.
Honestly that's what I expected.
What I would agree with you on is that it's easy for capitalism to push burdens onto those lower than someone else on the economic scale. This is just one of the times that includes "rich" people and they don't like it (Oligarchs pushing their burden onto the ""rich").
Also the massive variation within the top 1% is much of the problem and also is usually referenced as "the top tenth of one 1%" when distinguishing stock traders from oligarchs. I also agree it's an easy way to lump the rich with the super rich, I just think the problem is that too many rich people think they're going to be super rich one day and don't want all their work to be for nothing, even if that means perpetuating an exploitative system. I think it's less that people are paid well enough than it is they are convinced resistance is futile.
Until one day they aren't convinced and that historically ends poorly for mostly everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
