|
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 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. I thought young people were supporting him because of his $1000/month cash handout for everyone.That Asian Americans are supporting him over others due to race has never crossed my radar.Seems like a stretch.
|
Yeah, that seems a bit of a stretch. The part of the Internet/Youtubesphere that likes UBI, likes Yang. Thats pretty simple.
He seems pretty open and honest in his interviews and isn't above admitting that he hasn't got a solid plan on certain issues. Thats refreshing. The Buttigieg & Co. "It's about values, not policies (so don't bother me with these specific quetions)" answer is just a huge red flag for me.
|
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? Show nested quote +On May 10 2019 00:39 hunts 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: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"
Yeah, although trumps plan also raises taxes on the non super rich. Honestly, I feel we are in a silly spot right now where taxes are very high, but due to loopholes the effective tax rates are not, except for the people who don't have the money or craftiness to use all the exemptions they can. I was honestly surprised when I went over my parents tax forms with them at how they who don't make all that much end up in something like the 2nd highest bracket and how high that base rate is if you don't take all the exemptions you can.
I'm not sure what exactly I'm trying to say here, I guess my personal belief is that people with hundreds of millions of dollars and up and corporations aren't paying their fair share of taxes, but people making probably 100-500k I feel are being treated like part of the super rich when they really are not and have plenty of their own financial problems and shouldn't be taxed as if they were part of the multimillionaire group.
|
I also feel that the large amounts of debt shouldn't be a barrier to job training for doctors. Or really any job. One of the major problems in the US right now is the cost of obtaining marketable skills or job training. The capitalist argument that education is an investment that will pay off was marketed to me my entire life. That 50K-100K of debt would allow me to earn more over 30-50 years, so it was worth the investment at age 18. And it all works on paper if you assume nothing bad happens, no profession changes are required. And having been in the real world where life is not a liner path and anything can happen, the argument no longer holds water. The world is not a meritocracy. Bad things happen to good people and they end up unable to do the job they trained for. And the education market fails them because obtaining new profession requires more debt.
On top of that, it hurts the US labor market because we have serious shortages in a number of professions, like nursing. And becoming a nurse is not cheap. When you look at this in contrast to other times in history where job training and education were less costly, you will see a more robust middle class that is able to move through the shifting economy far more easily than today.
|
There are up and down sides to both free and paid education. My parents come from Ukraine where not only was college free, but students got paid a stipend based on their grades. However it was heavily dictated by entrance exam scores, as well as bribes and other corruption. Neither of my parents could go to the schools they wanted to because of being Jewish, although that's more of a problem with corruption and the country than simply free school. The downside to it that is real however, is that a lot of people will be kept out based on their scores, and there will be probably even more bribing when rich parents find out little timmy Jr didn't make the cut to go to his favorite party school. The upside however is that in theory it should make the ability to go to college be more based on merit rather than your parents money, which is always a good thing.
|
On May 11 2019 02:56 hunts wrote: There are up and down sides to both free and paid education. My parents come from Ukraine where not only was college free, but students got paid a stipend based on their grades. However it was heavily dictated by entrance exam scores, as well as bribes and other corruption. Neither of my parents could go to the schools they wanted to because of being Jewish, although that's more of a problem with corruption and the country than simply free school. The downside to it that is real however, is that a lot of people will be kept out based on their scores, and there will be probably even more bribing when rich parents find out little timmy Jr didn't make the cut to go to his favorite party school. The upside however is that in theory it should make the ability to go to college be more based on merit rather than your parents money, which is always a good thing.
C'mon, this is not a downside to free education, but to a corrupt environment! And selecting people based on their skills isn't a downside at all. In my alma mater, there was a strong downturn in the number of applicants (as everyone now wants to study something that makes big money, not physics) and thus the requirements got lowered, which drastically lowered the quality of the education, because when you allow in people without reasonable basics in maths, everyone gets slowed down to their level. Selection by capability is definitely a good thing for higher education, not everyone is well suited for everything.
Back in the communist days (in Czech Republic), we also had big problems of people not being able to study where they wanted because their parents were not working class enough or not kissing ass of the right people, but we were able to fix that surprisingly fast and now our higher education is great, while still being free.
Paid education is one of the biggest obstacles for class mobility and imho one of the key problems that the US has.
|
The thing with education is the States is it is not going to be a matter of the Government paying for it. They are going to need to make it so school can't make profits and are not businesses. Otherwise the taxes to pay for these schools is going to be so much more expensive then other countries that have "free" university.
|
On May 11 2019 03:14 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2019 02:56 hunts wrote: There are up and down sides to both free and paid education. My parents come from Ukraine where not only was college free, but students got paid a stipend based on their grades. However it was heavily dictated by entrance exam scores, as well as bribes and other corruption. Neither of my parents could go to the schools they wanted to because of being Jewish, although that's more of a problem with corruption and the country than simply free school. The downside to it that is real however, is that a lot of people will be kept out based on their scores, and there will be probably even more bribing when rich parents find out little timmy Jr didn't make the cut to go to his favorite party school. The upside however is that in theory it should make the ability to go to college be more based on merit rather than your parents money, which is always a good thing. C'mon, this is not a downside to free education, but to a corrupt environment! And selecting people based on their skills isn't a downside at all. In my alma mater, there was a strong downturn in the number of applicants (as everyone now wants to study something that makes big money, not physics) and thus the requirements got lowered, which drastically lowered the quality of the education, because when you allow in people without reasonable basics in maths, everyone gets slowed down to their level. Selection by capability is definitely a good thing for higher education, not everyone is well suited for everything. Back in the communist days (in Czech Republic), we also had big problems of people not being able to study where they wanted because their parents were not working class enough or not kissing ass of the right people, but we were able to fix that surprisingly fast and now our higher education is great, while still being free. Paid education is one of the biggest obstacles for class mobility and imho one of the key problems that the US has.
I was trying to say that people being selected for their merit rather than parents money is a good thing, although a lot of people wouldn't like it, and it would probably lead to more corruption or attempted corruption.
|
On May 11 2019 03:43 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2019 03:14 opisska wrote:On May 11 2019 02:56 hunts wrote: There are up and down sides to both free and paid education. My parents come from Ukraine where not only was college free, but students got paid a stipend based on their grades. However it was heavily dictated by entrance exam scores, as well as bribes and other corruption. Neither of my parents could go to the schools they wanted to because of being Jewish, although that's more of a problem with corruption and the country than simply free school. The downside to it that is real however, is that a lot of people will be kept out based on their scores, and there will be probably even more bribing when rich parents find out little timmy Jr didn't make the cut to go to his favorite party school. The upside however is that in theory it should make the ability to go to college be more based on merit rather than your parents money, which is always a good thing. C'mon, this is not a downside to free education, but to a corrupt environment! And selecting people based on their skills isn't a downside at all. In my alma mater, there was a strong downturn in the number of applicants (as everyone now wants to study something that makes big money, not physics) and thus the requirements got lowered, which drastically lowered the quality of the education, because when you allow in people without reasonable basics in maths, everyone gets slowed down to their level. Selection by capability is definitely a good thing for higher education, not everyone is well suited for everything. Back in the communist days (in Czech Republic), we also had big problems of people not being able to study where they wanted because their parents were not working class enough or not kissing ass of the right people, but we were able to fix that surprisingly fast and now our higher education is great, while still being free. Paid education is one of the biggest obstacles for class mobility and imho one of the key problems that the US has. I was trying to say that people being selected for their merit rather than parents money is a good thing, although a lot of people wouldn't like it, and it would probably lead to more corruption or attempted corruption.
Well, the corruption is then just some money anyway and when in the paid system, it's 100% money, it can only get better
|
The actual problem with making university free is that it's highly regressive. University students in general will belong to the upper middle class in the future. There's no reason why they have to be subsidized. If you want to help the poor get into higher education there are other ways.
|
On May 11 2019 03:53 RvB wrote: The actual problem with making university free is that it's highly regressive. University students in general will belong to the upper middle class in the future. There's no reason why they have to be subsidized. If you want to help the poor get into higher education there are other ways.
Can you explain how that would happen? Not attacking, I just don't see how that would be the case
|
On May 11 2019 03:53 RvB wrote: The actual problem with making university free is that it's highly regressive. University students in general will belong to the upper middle class in the future. There's no reason why they have to be subsidized. If you want to help the poor get into higher education there are other ways.
Yeah and then, with progressive taxes, you get the money back and even some on the top. That is how most of Europe actually works and it has been shown to work great. The benefit is, that this way, you can have also people whose parents are poor join upper middle class, that is, class mobility, the main weapon against creation of socially weak areas, concentration of crime, segregation etc. Also you help guarantee that more talents are realized, further contributing to the growth of the society.
Moreover, it's not that simple, in eastern Europe, there is a plenty of jobs that require higher education, yet pay poorly (nursing, teachers, etc.) and those jobs are mostly paid by the government anyway, so by making those people pay for university and then having to pay them more, the state would just pay money to itself, losing a bunch in the process for the profit of the bank giving the loan to those withiut the rich parents.
Free education is a total win for everyone, except for people who burn with jealousy that "their money are being given to someone".
|
Imho, you should keep the poor in cages, so they don't interefere with our middle class lifestyle. After all, only the pure social cast of people with sufficient income is properly shaped to receive education, work in specializied field and meaningfuly change lives of people
User was warned for this post.
|
On May 11 2019 04:24 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2019 03:53 RvB wrote: The actual problem with making university free is that it's highly regressive. University students in general will belong to the upper middle class in the future. There's no reason why they have to be subsidized. If you want to help the poor get into higher education there are other ways. Yeah and then, with progressive taxes, you get the money back and even some on the top. That is how most of Europe actually works and it has been shown to work great. The benefit is, that this way, you can have also people whose parents are poor join upper middle class, that is, class mobility, the main weapon against creation of socially weak areas, concentration of crime, segregation etc. Also you help guarantee that more talents are realized, further contributing to the growth of the society. Moreover, it's not that simple, in eastern Europe, there is a plenty of jobs that require higher education, yet pay poorly (nursing, teachers, etc.) and those jobs are mostly paid by the government anyway, so by making those people pay for university and then having to pay them more, the state would just pay money to itself, losing a bunch in the process for the profit of the bank giving the loan to those withiut the rich parents. Free education is a total win for everyone, except for people who burn with jealousy that "their money are being given to someone".
I think you also have to decide if your ideal is everyone at exactly the same wealth and status or if you are OK with some differences but you want the bottom pulled up and the top pulled down.
Money is not everything and some value it more than others. I gave up a fair bit for better/less hours, more holidays work that is more fulfilling so on. if others choose that money is more important to them and things by all means I'm fine that they can go for it. I just want a end to the generational wealth (say 50 million and above or something I'm not sure of the exact numbers and Oligarch stuff and pull up the poor so that both they are not fighting for survival and they have the choice based on work and skill to make the one I did.
I think the various Candidates have different views of this. Biden scares me the most because I think he is the most happy with the status quo.
|
Bernie followed by Warren are my current preferences.
Not interested in Biden at all. Buttigieg and O'Rourke are the champions of feel good language with no real policy positions. Hopefully this changes by the debates. Harris is very smart and Obamalike in her ability to speak progressively while also reassuring the establishment. Wouldn't shock me if she becomes one of the frontrunners.
|
As someone not from the US, any candidate that does not subscribe to neo-imperialist ideas and firmly opposes US involvement in wars abroad is an acceptable choice in my book. Sanders' track record in that regard is one of the main reasons I would have liked him see win last election. To be fair, Trump has not started any wars yet and as is thus currently fulfilling my requirements for a US president better than any other president in the past decades... If I were living in the US (and from a purely humanist point of view) I would like to see a president that is going to tackle the most prominent issues causing a social divide in the country. All of those require a left leaning approach in my eyes and include reforms to health care, higher education and the prison system amongst others. Unfortunately, the (what I would currently call) degenerate state of those issues does not allow simply adopting the European models. I believe that a temperate approach trying to weed out those issues in the mid to long term is the most pragmatic option. Any candidate that campaigns on imminent, radical changes to reduce social inequality is, in my opinion, either simply pandering for support without any intention on delivering on their promises or having no idea how to effectively improve the situation.
On May 08 2019 00:17 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2019 19:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 07 2019 14:20 RvB wrote:On May 07 2019 04:29 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 04:05 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 03:47 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 03:04 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 02:54 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 02:39 Plansix wrote: Lets not kid ourselves, Biden is terrible at running for office and the those Onion articles about him being a doofy uncle in the White House are the only reason he is even in the running. That meme of a character somehow obliterated his shitty record on pretty much every issue that matters to modern Democrats.
Edit: Warren going after billionaires is one of the least controversial parts of her platform. Most Americans have no love for the super wealthy and dislike student loans a whole lot. I disagree. I think there's a massive debate between those who are looking to retire on social security wanting trillions to fix that problem versus those who took out loans for education and can't get themselves out of debt. I also believe there are other groups of people who are looking for rich money to fix their problems and don't want to see it distributed elsewhere. And then there is me saying, “We should do both, really.” Student debt is a huge problem for the country and the student loan industry had enjoyed enough federal protection from being discharged. And the social safety nets created for our aging population need to be addressed. And none of this is going to happen on the cheap. The whole plan of pitting the young against the old only works if we buy into the idea that they need to fight over the scraps super wealthy are willing to give up. I agree both issues need to be tackled. But I won't vote for any who says we will do it by taxing the 1% or any other income class. We already give up too much through income. I want a candidate that understands this. I lived off very little so I could pay off my debt and make a good salary. Anyone who wants to take more of my hard earned salary directly out of my paycheck will miss my vote. I'm not opposed to other taxes outside of income tax if they make sense. Unless you make millions upon millions, I doubt you are going to be taxed any more. This is about people making more money than they know what to do with and who control more of the wealth than is health for the country. I still think it's wrong. A 50% income tax means half of everything you earn goes to the government. Why should that be so? If people are upset about the amount of money someone earns maybe there are other ways to fix it. But just saying well you earn X amount so we want you to give half to the government so they can choose how to spend it isn't okay. And the1% are taxed more then that. There has to be a limit on how much the government can take on earned income before it's just immoral. Why not? If that is the amount of money we need to rebuild the country after 50 years of doing nothing, then that is the amount they need to be taxed. It isn’t like that sort of tax rate is anything new. Taxes were that high in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. I don’t really care about morality, because I know how wealth inequality solves itself on a long enough time line. And that resolution will be less than moral. Either the government can do it or it will get solved through extra governmental means, like an economic collapse or some sort of civil unrest. We are facing some real problems this country that are simply not getting attention because everyone is convinced that a bombing economy will somehow fix the housing shortage, student loan crisis and rising healthcare costs. My state is facing a real problem with massive numbers of homeless children that they simply do not have services to deal with it. We are also facing housing shortage and so signs of affordable housing being on the legislature’s to do list. And these problems won’t stay in the costal cities, people are getting priced out all over the country. This isn’t some abstract debate about the morality of taxes. These are real problems that must be solved and I’m not interested in the debate about how much is to much. 90% was what we taxed the rich in the 1940s and 1950s. Lets not get to that crisis level and just do 50%. The lefts proposals to fix those issues require much more than just taxing the 1%. In reality every welfare state in the West heavily taxes everyone except the poor. There aren't enough rich people to sustain government spending of 40-50% of GDP. It is certainly true that Scandinavian countries tax most people more than the US does, and a lot of it is concealed through VAT. (Income taxes themselves aren't all that high in Norway, much higher in Denmark though. Myself I make something like $60k per year but I only pay ~25% taxes, however we have reasonably hefty consumption taxes, especially for items that have other negative effects. (tobacco, alcohol, sugar, cars, petrol). However I don't have to pay for health care (like $15 per visit regardless of how expensive it is to treat), and I have $35k total student loans after spending 6 years in university. If people want universal health care and free college tuition, they will indeed have to expect to pay more in taxes across the board, not just the top 1%. Prolly top 50% will see some increase in tax burden. But aside from the top 1-10%, they will also heftily benefit from certain expenses being significantly less expensive, or not expenses at all. Like, nobody in norway has a 'college fund' for their children. That's not an expense we have. Kindergarten likewise - most children are in kindergarten from age 1-6, and it costs at most like $300 per kid for one month - for most it's significantly lower, but costs vary depending on income. Essentially, if you are full time employed without children, you have enough money regardless of profession and regardless of our taxation levels being higher. People in more economically vulnerable positions, students, parents of younger children, people in positions where it's not such a given that they will have enough, get subsidized in some shape or form. I'm not gonna pretend that you can realize a scandinavian social democracy without increasing taxes across the board; you can't. But I will definitely argue that for a reasonably large % of people, the added costs they feel through increased taxation is alleviated through lower costs for stuff they used to have to pay for. Reasonably well educated adults without children are one group that is outside the top 10% income wise and who might still end up paying slightly more overall, but it's hard for me to be all that sympathetic - this group already has plenty. The problem is that in Norway, to get the benefits, you have to live your life in a certain way. If I want to go live like a hermit in the woods, and make money with some online business, I'd have to pay higher taxes, and get little in return. This is one of my fundamental problems with higher taxes, you lose choice. Honestly, I wouldn't increase income or corporate taxes at all in the US, if anything, a sales tax hike could be argued for though.
Sales tax is socially extremely unfair and hits people harder the lower they are in the income scale. A millionaire cares little if he has to spend 10-20% more on the goods he buys, but for a family that barely makes end meet, the added 10-20% can make the difference between buying food and new clothes or choosing one of both. Lumping in income and corporate tax together is also something that should never be done without a whole lot of further explanation. First of all, the brunt of any changes to income tax (as in how much the person's lifestyle is affected) is carried mostly by the middle class and to a lesser degree (depending on the exact changes) affects the lower and upper class (excluding the super rich). A corporate tax targets a whole different demographic. It basically does not target at all the classic working population. On top of that a corporate tax increase mostly affects larger businesses and by itself has only marginal effects on small businesses.
On May 08 2019 13:21 FiWiFaKi wrote: ... 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.
...
50% seems like a very arbitrary choice (honestly, as any choice is)... Furthermore, you say that the combined tax burden should not exceed 50%. This is by no means an argument for capping out income tax. Sales and sin taxes hit poor people disproportionately harder than the middle class, the upper class and the rich / super rich. A progressive income tax on the other hand is in theory a social and fair way to ensure that everyone "pays their fair share" while allowing for ambition and success to be worth it even in incremental steps. Then again the "fairness" of a progressive income tax stronly correlates to the rate of progression. The way it works in Europe at least (specifically Germany, since I am most aware of the situation in the country I live in) is that the steep progression coupled with the progression of mandatory health and retirement insurance means that income tax hits the middle class the hardest by far. Additionally, there is stuff like capital gains tax, which is significantly lower than income tax while mostly mattering to people who are well beyond anything that would be called middle class. What I am trying to say is that: 1. when aiming for a cap of the total tax burden as you suggest, adjustments (and increases) to income tax (or any other single tax) are still possible. 2. 50% is arbitrary and warrants at the very least some consideration for adjusting based on total income. To me it seems that taking away 50% from a family making 100k/year or 200k/year is a whole lot differnt than taking away 50% of the income from a billionaire. 3. capping out income tax at a certain point, has no effect on people who only/mostly pay capital gains taxes. Didn't Warren Buffet comment once on taxation inequality by mentioning that his effective tax rate is under 25%?
On May 08 2019 13:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 13:22 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2019 08:53 Bourgeois wrote:On May 07 2019 04:29 Plansix wrote: Why not? If that is the amount of money we need to rebuild the country after 50 years of doing nothing, then that is the amount they need to be taxed. It isn’t like that sort of tax rate is anything new. Taxes were that high in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
I don’t really care about morality, because I know how wealth inequality solves itself on a long enough time line. And that resolution will be less than moral. Either the government can do it or it will get solved through extra governmental means, like an economic collapse or some sort of civil unrest. We are facing some real problems this country that are simply not getting attention because everyone is convinced that a bombing economy will somehow fix the housing shortage, student loan crisis and rising healthcare costs.
My state is facing a real problem with massive numbers of homeless children that they simply do not have services to deal with it. We are also facing housing shortage and so signs of affordable housing being on the legislature’s to do list. And these problems won’t stay in the costal cities, people are getting priced out all over the country. This isn’t some abstract debate about the morality of taxes. These are real problems that must be solved and I’m not interested in the debate about how much is to much. 90% was what we taxed the rich in the 1940s and 1950s. Lets not get to that crisis level and just do 50%.
It's so easy to say this when you're not rich yourself. How about this, consider the computer you're currently using to play Starcraft, or your cellphone, because these are things you can relate to. Can you imagine that each time you brought one, you had to contribute to someone half the cost of their computer or cellphone? We live in a society that massively overattends to the needs of the wealthy and powerful and yet we still manage to get these "Won't somebody think of the poor rich people?", it's amazing. The primary driver to a healthy economy is technological innovation, good luck getting that when you're taxing people at 65%... I mean I guess for a country like Switzerland it's easy, because they can just piggyback off of the innovation from other countries.
I keep hearing that about technological innovation, but I fail to see how it relates to the matter at hand. Do you think just because somebody will "lose" 65% or whatever of his income to the state anyway, that person will not still strive to increase his overall income to increase his available money? And the example with Switzerland is pretty poor to be honest. First of all, the country has a very strong industrial backbone. And second, it relies heavily on its banking sector, which one could view as "piggybacking" on other countries, but one should not forget that other major countries including the USA strongly rely on their banking sector as well.
On May 08 2019 13:28 FiWiFaKi wrote: You guys are trying to marginalize "rich" people too much. They're no different than the average person here, I don't see people making arguments for why black people aren't deserving of certain things, so why is it so easy to marginalize the wealthy? You can have a typical person on TL, they end up buying a few bitcoins, sell, and boom, they can be millionaires. They took risks, we're smart, maybe a bit lucky, but how do you now go about rationalizing trying to take half their stuff.
How to rationalize taking X% of income from someone is a topic that needs quite a bit of elaboration, but a simple answer would be: If a middle class family has to spend 80% of its income to cover taxes+health insurance+retirement payments+living costs+housing costs+child upbringing, I think it is fair to require people who have a higher nominal income to spend more than 50% of their income on all of these combined.
On May 09 2019 11:19 BisuDagger wrote: There is a big difference between a sales tax to pay for those things as opposed to an income tax which takes my earned money without choice. Sales, gas, soda tax etc at least leave me the choice. Even toll roads give you the option to use or not. It's high income tax that we are fighting.
Sales tax is the most unfair tax from a social point of view - the less you earn, the higher burden you have to carry.
On May 09 2019 12:18 FiWiFaKi wrote: What do you mean, the wealthy pay much much more than the average person, it's not like they aren't paying money. We're talking about the rich paying 40% tax versus 60%... It's not worth making these people unhappy to a fairly marginal increase in tax revenue, when that emphasis could be placed on growing the economy and leading to the same increase in tax revenue.
And no, I don't consider myself the upper class. I'm in the top 20% income in Canada, so Im well off, but not much different from the typical university graduate. Short term your logic makes sense, long term, not really.
It depends solely on what you view as "the rich". Yes, a progressive income tax rate means that people earning more pay a higher percentage of their income. But there are quite a bit of other things to consider. 1. I'd argue that a 50% income tax cap is highly unfair if it applies to both - somebody making 100k/year and somebody making 10 mil/year. 2. There are many rich people who are only marginally affected by income tax. The simplest example would be somebody who only has to pay capital gains tax as opposed to income tax, and thus has only a fraction of the tax burder despite earning way more. And capital gains tax is by no means the only example of people well within the top 1% of earners having a significantly lower effective tax rate than the overwhelming majority of the middle class. 3. When using combined tax burden (including all other taxes beside income), the middle class is generally the one paying by far the largest portion of their income in taxes.
On May 09 2019 12:58 BerserkSword wrote: ...
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.
Your comment actually raises a good point about the unfairness of the current taxation system. Since it takes into account only the income generated in a single year, exceptionally good years get punished really hard, which is a big hindrance to social mobility. It is especially punishing for people that are not on a wage, since the income fluctuations for them can be extreme. I happen to know mutliple cases of this in my social circle and to be honest I am unsure how this can be resolved in a fair manner. How do you "fairly" tax somebody whose income in the past years was: 70k, 200k, 700k, 60k, 50k or 10k, 12k, 15k, 25k, 120k?
On May 09 2019 13:06 GreenHorizons wrote: ... 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" ...
I am all for increasing social equality, but in this specific case one should keep in mind that he is talking about a single year. What if he was barely making ends meet the previous several years while working on reaching this income? What if he is not on a set wage and may easily earn only a fraction of the income of that specific year in the next couple of years?
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.
As mentioned above, this is my main concern as a non-US citizen. My opinion of quite a few media outlets has dropped significantly ever since Trump was elected and he has been portraited as something like the "harbringer of death and destruction that wants to see the world burn in a eternal warfare", while he has been the first US president in decades to not start any wars abroad. I surely hope the democrats manage to support somebody who is not a total warhawk like Hillary this time around.
On May 10 2019 07:37 BerserkSword wrote: ... 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. ...
There must be incentive to do things. ...
I'd say that squeezing out another million from somebody who already has a whole lot of millions to live with is not particularly unfair...
And as far as incentives go - I'd argue that even if the top effective tax rate was 90%, people would still have the incentive to try and earn another million more, because living with another 100k/year is a whole lot better than without.
On May 11 2019 02:12 hunts wrote: I'm not sure what exactly I'm trying to say here, I guess my personal belief is that people with hundreds of millions of dollars and up and corporations aren't paying their fair share of taxes, but people making probably 100-500k I feel are being treated like part of the super rich when they really are not and have plenty of their own financial problems and shouldn't be taxed as if they were part of the multimillionaire group.
This is a big issue in my opinion as well. I do not know how exactly the numbers work out in the US, but in Germany, the highest effective tax rate hits the middle class... by far...
On May 11 2019 03:53 RvB wrote: The actual problem with making university free is that it's highly regressive. University students in general will belong to the upper middle class in the future. There's no reason why they have to be subsidized. If you want to help the poor get into higher education there are other ways.
Once again, I cannot really comment on how this works in the US, but in Germany (and any other Western European country I am aware of) this is not an issue at all due to the taxation later on. People pay for their "free education" after they get a job. I would even say that it is anything but regressive and allows for a lot of social mobility while minimizing social divide. If you benefited from your "free education" and got a decent job, you wil be paying it back with the taxes on your income. If a critical event happens (e.g. you get injured or the market situation changes), you are not doomed to homelessness by any outstanding student loans.
Off topic: How is this possible? :D + Show Spoiler +
|
On May 10 2019 11:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2019 08:48 BerserkSword wrote: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: [quote]
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. 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. Show nested quote +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.
Just because not all people have to take debt, doesnt mean that debt is an obstruction. Because the government WILL give you any funds you need if you have the qualifications.
If someone doesnt want to become a doctor because he doesn't want debt, that's his problem. the opportunity is there.
Increasing the tax burdern on working professionals to the benefit of everyone else isnt capitalism. That's marxist socialism. A certain class of individuals is being scapegoated with no benefits to themselves (oligarchs and classes lower than them benefit).
You honestly think small business owners, doctors, lawyers, accountants, day traders, etc think they are going to become super rich one day? I'd bet the farm that it's not the case. Let me know when you find a restaurant owner who thinks he's going to have a private jet one day.
People just want to be rewarded for their hard work and investment.
On May 11 2019 17:18 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2019 12:58 BerserkSword wrote: ...
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.
Your comment actually raises a good point about the unfairness of the current taxation system. Since it takes into account only the income generated in a single year, exceptionally good years get punished really hard, which is a big hindrance to social mobility. It is especially punishing for people that are not on a wage, since the income fluctuations for them can be extreme. I happen to know mutliple cases of this in my social circle and to be honest I am unsure how this can be resolved in a fair manner. How do you "fairly" tax somebody whose income in the past years was: 70k, 200k, 700k, 60k, 50k or 10k, 12k, 15k, 25k, 120k? Show nested quote +On May 10 2019 07:37 BerserkSword wrote: ... 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. ...
There must be incentive to do things. ... I'd say that squeezing out another million from somebody who already has a whole lot of millions to live with is not particularly unfair... And as far as incentives go - I'd argue that even if the top effective tax rate was 90%, people would still have the incentive to try and earn another million more, because living with another 100k/year is a whole lot better than without.
I wasnt referring to people with millions. I was talking about people like small business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc who don't have millions and often have the widely varied incomes for a chunks of time that you pointed out.
My point is that Bernie's, and I'm sure any other hard leftist candidate's if there is another one, tax policy hits that group hard as hell.
I strongly disagree with your statement about incentives. It is not easy to make a million dollars. It involves significant risk/work in the vast majority of cases. pissing 90% away to the government is ludicrous
|
On May 11 2019 22:03 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2019 11:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 10 2019 08:48 BerserkSword wrote: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: [quote]
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.
[quote]
A humble brag: [quote]
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. Just because not all people have to take debt, doesnt mean that debt is an obstruction. Because the government WILL give you any funds you need if you have the qualifications. If someone doesnt want to become a doctor because he doesn't want debt, that's his problem. the opportunity is there. Increasing the tax burdern on working professionals to the benefit of everyone else isnt capitalism. That's marxist socialism. A certain class of individuals is being scapegoated with no benefits to themselves (oligarchs and classes lower than them benefit). You honestly think small business owners, doctors, lawyers, accountants, day traders, etc think they are going to become super rich one day? I'd bet the farm that it's not the case. Let me know when you find a restaurant owner who thinks he's going to have a private jet one day. People just want to be rewarded for their hard work and investment. Show nested quote +On May 11 2019 17:18 ggrrg wrote:On May 09 2019 12:58 BerserkSword wrote: ...
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.
Your comment actually raises a good point about the unfairness of the current taxation system. Since it takes into account only the income generated in a single year, exceptionally good years get punished really hard, which is a big hindrance to social mobility. It is especially punishing for people that are not on a wage, since the income fluctuations for them can be extreme. I happen to know mutliple cases of this in my social circle and to be honest I am unsure how this can be resolved in a fair manner. How do you "fairly" tax somebody whose income in the past years was: 70k, 200k, 700k, 60k, 50k or 10k, 12k, 15k, 25k, 120k? On May 10 2019 07:37 BerserkSword wrote: ... 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. ...
There must be incentive to do things. ... I'd say that squeezing out another million from somebody who already has a whole lot of millions to live with is not particularly unfair... And as far as incentives go - I'd argue that even if the top effective tax rate was 90%, people would still have the incentive to try and earn another million more, because living with another 100k/year is a whole lot better than without. I wasnt referring to people with millions. I was talking about people like small business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc who don't have millions and often have the widely varied incomes for a chunks of time that you pointed out. My point is that Bernie's, and I'm sure any other hard leftist candidate's if there is another one, tax policy hits that group hard as hell. I strongly disagree with your statement about incentives. It is not easy to make a million dollars. It involves significant risk/work in the vast majority of cases. pissing 90% away to the government is ludicrous
Would it be fair to presume you think the US is a (perhaps flawed) meritocracy?
Just fyi my perspective is that marxist socialism is superior to capitalism.
Bernie being the only one with both a chance of winning and a shot at agreeing with me on that makes him my preferred candidate of the bunch, even if I personally think he's too moderate.
|
On May 11 2019 22:03 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2019 11:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 10 2019 08:48 BerserkSword wrote: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: [quote]
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.
[quote]
A humble brag: [quote]
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. Just because not all people have to take debt, doesnt mean that debt is an obstruction. Because the government WILL give you any funds you need if you have the qualifications. If someone doesnt want to become a doctor because he doesn't want debt, that's his problem. the opportunity is there. Increasing the tax burdern on working professionals to the benefit of everyone else isnt capitalism. That's marxist socialism. A certain class of individuals is being scapegoated with no benefits to themselves (oligarchs and classes lower than them benefit). You honestly think small business owners, doctors, lawyers, accountants, day traders, etc think they are going to become super rich one day? I'd bet the farm that it's not the case. Let me know when you find a restaurant owner who thinks he's going to have a private jet one day. People just want to be rewarded for their hard work and investment.
I will have to say that yes college is available to probably everyone that wants to go, if they are willing to take on debt. From my experience and that of people I know, it's actually easier to get financial aid for college if your parents don't make as much money. I started college after high school then took a break for other stuff and am finishing a bachelors now at almost 31, and until a certain age I was not eligible for financial aid because of my parents income, which shifted the burden wholly onto them, and while they were able to pay for community college, it was not easy on them.
Although also in reverse, it can be quite difficult to get a student loan if you come from a poor family, when I went back to university I had to get student loans, and the interest rates would've been insanely high if it wasn't for my parents co-signing with me. But I do have to say that Berserksword is right in that anyone can go to college if they are willing to take on loans. The loans do however limit peoples options of majors, as they are then strongly encouraged to pick a career path that will pay well enough to pay off their loans rather than something they would enjoy like music or liberal arts (of course there are plenty of people who make lots of money with those degrees)
|
I'd just also point out there are a lot of kids that discover around 18 that they have terrible credit/can't get loans because their parents put bills or credit cards in their name. Additionally lots of kids end up taking charges for working parents because some time in juvie may be better than being a homeless orphan (excluding them from federal aid). I suppose most people would probably blame kids for their own pot charges and such that can eliminate them from potentially getting federal aid too.
The idea that there's a remotely level playing field or equitable path to economic prosperity (be it doctor, trader, etc...) is a hegemonic myth of the center-right imo.
|
|
|
|