|
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 12 2019 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote: 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.
In that you are right, I wasn't thinking about people who are disqualified from financial aid due to charges for something minor or out of their control, just because I was lucky enough to be raised in an environment where crime was very rare and my parents discouraged any illegal or shady activity. I wasn't aware that going to juvie or something like that would disqualify a person from financial aid, but you do bring up a point where some people may be forced into that circumstance despite their desire for further education. As far as not being eligible for student loans because of their parents, that part does suck but it can be worked around. Namely if they can get financial aid, the rest of the university expenses that financial aid doesn't cover can be covered with part time work while going to college, just the entire thing can't. Also financial aid isn't entirely a grant either, about 50-75% of the financial aid I've gotten was in the form of federal loans with better interest rates than the private loans I had to get to make up the rest of the expenses.
I do think that if done correctly having higher education be free is superior to our way, I was simply making a point that due to financial aid and student loans it isn't as hard to afford college as it sometimes sounds. But I can see how circumstances of the very poor can make that even harder without the kids having any control over it.
|
On May 12 2019 06:05 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote: 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. In that you are right, I wasn't thinking about people who are disqualified from financial aid due to charges for something minor or out of their control, just because I was lucky enough to be raised in an environment where crime was very rare and my parents discouraged any illegal or shady activity. I wasn't aware that going to juvie or something like that would disqualify a person from financial aid, but you do bring up a point where some people may be forced into that circumstance despite their desire for further education. As far as not being eligible for student loans because of their parents, that part does suck but it can be worked around. Namely if they can get financial aid, the rest of the university expenses that financial aid doesn't cover can be covered with part time work while going to college, just the entire thing can't. Also financial aid isn't entirely a grant either, about 50-75% of the financial aid I've gotten was in the form of federal loans with better interest rates than the private loans I had to get to make up the rest of the expenses. I do think that if done correctly having higher education be free is superior to our way, I was simply making a point that due to financial aid and student loans it isn't as hard to afford college as it sometimes sounds. But I can see how circumstances of the very poor can make that even harder without the kids having any control over it.
I think the point is that there are hurdles for some of the best potential people in any profession that practically preclude them based on factors beyond their control, like parentage. The easiest example that comes to mind is basketball. There wasn't some genetic anomaly that took place in the 50's that over ~50 years turned the NBA from 100% white to ~74% Black. They just stopped some of the arbitrary barriers that excluded more capable players.
College works the same way. There are lots of more capable students being excluded with barriers like debt, "grades", criminal convictions, etc...
|
On May 12 2019 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 06:05 hunts wrote:On May 12 2019 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote: 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. In that you are right, I wasn't thinking about people who are disqualified from financial aid due to charges for something minor or out of their control, just because I was lucky enough to be raised in an environment where crime was very rare and my parents discouraged any illegal or shady activity. I wasn't aware that going to juvie or something like that would disqualify a person from financial aid, but you do bring up a point where some people may be forced into that circumstance despite their desire for further education. As far as not being eligible for student loans because of their parents, that part does suck but it can be worked around. Namely if they can get financial aid, the rest of the university expenses that financial aid doesn't cover can be covered with part time work while going to college, just the entire thing can't. Also financial aid isn't entirely a grant either, about 50-75% of the financial aid I've gotten was in the form of federal loans with better interest rates than the private loans I had to get to make up the rest of the expenses. I do think that if done correctly having higher education be free is superior to our way, I was simply making a point that due to financial aid and student loans it isn't as hard to afford college as it sometimes sounds. But I can see how circumstances of the very poor can make that even harder without the kids having any control over it. I think the point is that there are hurdles for some of the best potential people in any profession that practically preclude them based on factors beyond their control, like parentage. The easiest example that comes to mind is basketball. There wasn't some genetic anomaly that took place in the 50's that over ~50 years turned the NBA from 100% white to ~74% Black. They just stopped some of the arbitrary barriers that excluded more capable players. College works the same way. There are lots of more capable students being excluded with barriers like debt, "grades", criminal convictions, etc...
I see. I think I am more inclined to agree with your point here. However I will also point out that every possible system will have certain barriers, and any barrier to entry will almost certainly hit the poor harder. With free college, the barrier would be entrance exams, which would likely require time/money for studying and books to prepare for said exams, and if there is currently discrimination based on criminal record for financial aid, I can see that also staying in place for free college. I honestly don't know what a good system would be to help poor people overcome issues that you've mentioned such as debt due to their parents, or criminal charges just from their upbrining that don't reflect whether or not they can be a good law abiding citizen or not, etc...
|
This article from Reuters has a bit about Joe Biden's policy on climate change.
Some quotes about strategy:
Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden is crafting a climate change policy he hopes will appeal to both environmentalists and the blue-collar voters who elected Donald Trump, according to two sources, carving out a middle ground approach that will likely face heavy resistance from green activists. [..] “What we learned from the Obama administration is unless we find middle ground on these issues, we risk not having any policies.”
Policy suggestions:
[..]policy will likely include the United States re-joining the Paris Climate Agreement and preserving U.S. regulations on emissions and vehicle fuel efficiency that Trump has sought to undo [..] policy could also be supportive of nuclear energy and fossil fuel options like natural gas and carbon capture technology, which limit emissions from coal plants and other industrial facilities
If I recall, there were zero questions about climate change in the 2016 election during major debates, yet for 2020 it polls as one of the top issues.
|
On May 12 2019 06:22 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 12 2019 06:05 hunts wrote:On May 12 2019 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote: 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. In that you are right, I wasn't thinking about people who are disqualified from financial aid due to charges for something minor or out of their control, just because I was lucky enough to be raised in an environment where crime was very rare and my parents discouraged any illegal or shady activity. I wasn't aware that going to juvie or something like that would disqualify a person from financial aid, but you do bring up a point where some people may be forced into that circumstance despite their desire for further education. As far as not being eligible for student loans because of their parents, that part does suck but it can be worked around. Namely if they can get financial aid, the rest of the university expenses that financial aid doesn't cover can be covered with part time work while going to college, just the entire thing can't. Also financial aid isn't entirely a grant either, about 50-75% of the financial aid I've gotten was in the form of federal loans with better interest rates than the private loans I had to get to make up the rest of the expenses. I do think that if done correctly having higher education be free is superior to our way, I was simply making a point that due to financial aid and student loans it isn't as hard to afford college as it sometimes sounds. But I can see how circumstances of the very poor can make that even harder without the kids having any control over it. I think the point is that there are hurdles for some of the best potential people in any profession that practically preclude them based on factors beyond their control, like parentage. The easiest example that comes to mind is basketball. There wasn't some genetic anomaly that took place in the 50's that over ~50 years turned the NBA from 100% white to ~74% Black. They just stopped some of the arbitrary barriers that excluded more capable players. College works the same way. There are lots of more capable students being excluded with barriers like debt, "grades", criminal convictions, etc... I see. I think I am more inclined to agree with your point here. However I will also point out that every possible system will have certain barriers, and any barrier to entry will almost certainly hit the poor harder. With free college, the barrier would be entrance exams, which would likely require time/money for studying and books to prepare for said exams, and if there is currently discrimination based on criminal record for financial aid, I can see that also staying in place for free college. I honestly don't know what a good system would be to help poor people overcome issues that you've mentioned such as debt due to their parents, or criminal charges just from their upbrining that don't reflect whether or not they can be a good law abiding citizen or not, etc...
The policies that help those things are removing ineffective barriers like test scores and reducing the gap between affluent and poor students from the start with programs like universal pre-k and decoupling local taxes and funding for schools and reducing the gaps between particular schools imo.
Those are the types of policy necessary to prevent poor parentage from precluding a child's potential imo. We also have to make sure schools provide useful learning skills and knowledge as well. Probably more important to know the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, how to participate in a democracy, practical math, etc... than it is to know a lot of the obscure/trivial stuff students typically momentarily memorize and regurgitate.
|
On May 12 2019 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 06:22 hunts wrote:On May 12 2019 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 12 2019 06:05 hunts wrote:On May 12 2019 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote: 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. In that you are right, I wasn't thinking about people who are disqualified from financial aid due to charges for something minor or out of their control, just because I was lucky enough to be raised in an environment where crime was very rare and my parents discouraged any illegal or shady activity. I wasn't aware that going to juvie or something like that would disqualify a person from financial aid, but you do bring up a point where some people may be forced into that circumstance despite their desire for further education. As far as not being eligible for student loans because of their parents, that part does suck but it can be worked around. Namely if they can get financial aid, the rest of the university expenses that financial aid doesn't cover can be covered with part time work while going to college, just the entire thing can't. Also financial aid isn't entirely a grant either, about 50-75% of the financial aid I've gotten was in the form of federal loans with better interest rates than the private loans I had to get to make up the rest of the expenses. I do think that if done correctly having higher education be free is superior to our way, I was simply making a point that due to financial aid and student loans it isn't as hard to afford college as it sometimes sounds. But I can see how circumstances of the very poor can make that even harder without the kids having any control over it. I think the point is that there are hurdles for some of the best potential people in any profession that practically preclude them based on factors beyond their control, like parentage. The easiest example that comes to mind is basketball. There wasn't some genetic anomaly that took place in the 50's that over ~50 years turned the NBA from 100% white to ~74% Black. They just stopped some of the arbitrary barriers that excluded more capable players. College works the same way. There are lots of more capable students being excluded with barriers like debt, "grades", criminal convictions, etc... I see. I think I am more inclined to agree with your point here. However I will also point out that every possible system will have certain barriers, and any barrier to entry will almost certainly hit the poor harder. With free college, the barrier would be entrance exams, which would likely require time/money for studying and books to prepare for said exams, and if there is currently discrimination based on criminal record for financial aid, I can see that also staying in place for free college. I honestly don't know what a good system would be to help poor people overcome issues that you've mentioned such as debt due to their parents, or criminal charges just from their upbrining that don't reflect whether or not they can be a good law abiding citizen or not, etc... The policies that help those things are removing ineffective barriers like test scores and reducing the gap between affluent and poor students from the start with programs like universal pre-k and decoupling local taxes and funding for schools and reducing the gaps between particular schools imo. Those are the types of policy necessary to prevent poor parentage from precluding a child's potential imo. We also have to make sure schools provide useful learning skills and knowledge as well. Probably more important to know the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, how to participate in a democracy, practical math, etc... than it is to know a lot of the obscure/trivial stuff students typically momentarily memorize and regurgitate.
I see. Can't say that I disagree there. I believe it has been shown in the politics thread that schools in poorer areas (ie: ones more populated by minorities) have lower quality of education, and then get further pnealized with even less funding if the students don't score high enough on standardized tests, making it even harder for them to get a good education.
I don't know if free higher education without any limit is really feasible though, I imagine if there are no entrance exams then people would simply get in but be kicked out if they are not passing classes or working towards an actual degree or something? I suppose that might be more fair as it would depend more on their ability to learn the material in those college classes and pass rather than their ability to prepare for the entrance exams prior to getting the education.
|
I was under the impression colleges/community colleges already had remedial classes that prepare you for those entrance exams/ starting course work. Catching up is an option, the issue is it costs money. Even if the classes are free for you, you need to be taking them while working full time usually or while taking on additional debt before you even start your 2/4/6+ year program since it costs money to live . Something like UbI might help here.
I personally don’t see why educating people to be professionals in society needs to be a monetized practice. I don’t think anything dealing with healthcare or education should be privatized We want people that can be to become teachers, stem professionals, etc. The line between high school and college is arbitrary imo . The world is different then when we set that as the end of public education and the costs to continue are surely different from when we did.
I certainly don’t understand why we need to pay presidents of public universities as much as we do for shoddy jobs (just google Rahmat shoureshi)
|
Canada10930 Posts
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? At a certain point, I think yes.
Put it another way- sure 50% is semi-arbitrary, but so is any number. How far would you push it? 75%? 90%? Because I think at a certain point, you would stop trying. Or do you think there is no limit to how far you could push that upper tax bracket number before people would stop? Or if there is a limit, what do you think it is?
If I have to make $4000 to increase my income by $2000, that's rough, but I might do it. But if I have to make $4000 to increase my income by $1000... I don't know that I would bother. And if I had to make $4000 in order to increase my income by $400... ain't happening.
I think there's something really nasty any time more than half your money you earn goes to the government who didn't earn it. I'm all for progressive taxes. I think the Canadian progressive tax is wonderful. But I can only go so far down that path.
|
On May 12 2019 09:08 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +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? At a certain point, I think yes. Put it another way- sure 50% is semi-arbitrary, but so is any number. How far would you push it? 75%? 90%? Because I think at a certain point, you would stop trying. Or do you think there is no limit to how far you could push that upper tax bracket number before people would stop? Or if there is a limit, what do you think it is? If I have to make $4000 to increase my income by $2000, that's rough, but I might do it. But if I have to make $4000 to increase my income by $1000... I don't know that I would bother. And if I had to make $4000 in order to increase my income by $400... ain't happening. I think there's something really nasty any time more than half your money you earn goes to the government who didn't earn it. I'm all for progressive taxes. I think the Canadian progressive tax is wonderful. But I can only go so far down that path.
A lot of the problem is people thinking their work is worth far more than it is, particularly when one considers externalities that are often forced upon more marginalized people to make it possible to pay them as much as they get in the first place.
That's to say the tax could be 90% and still not impact innovation. The issue imo is the brand of capitalists that think people need to be motivated by fear of poverty/death in the first place. We won't lose the Jonas Sulks or Frederick Bantings, but we might be lucky enough to lose some Murdochs and Bloombergs in a non-capitalist system.
Taxes on those above the poverty line are essentially the money needed to keep capitalists getting richer but they are too greedy to let go of voluntarily. We wouldn't even need taxes if people just weren't trained to be so selfish.
Most people who've ever worked in a tip/service industry know that people just over the poverty line are far more gracious and considerate than wealthy people. Which is to say it isn't the residents of Detroit or labor unions threatening to leave the country if they can't be as selfish as they'd like.
|
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. This is totally dependant on the courses people choose to do.There is no guarantee that a university degree will assure even a middle class lifestyle anymore.
Larger numbers of students doing free gender studies and art history degrees at the expense of the taxpayer is something that should turn people off the idea of free university.Some courses offer more benefit to society than other courses, fact.
|
Late in replying to a post earlier, but for those who don't think Andrew Yang is relying on the fact that he is Asian, consider this: It fits the exact stereotype that Asians are computer nerds that his main policy relates to Asian nerd stuff. He's the Asian computer guy in Hollywood movies. If his focus was on something like climate change, then you could say wow he is unique. But really, he's just another Asian guy who's into computers.
|
On May 12 2019 11:43 iPlaY.NettleS 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. This is totally dependant on the courses people choose to do.There is no guarantee that a university degree will assure even a middle class lifestyle anymore. Larger numbers of students doing free gender studies and art history degrees at the expense of the taxpayer is something that should turn people off the idea of free university.Some courses offer more benefit to society than other courses, fact.
It's not that I completely disagree with this sentiment, just what you value and what you see as "beneficial". The thing is it's not an emotional or personal preference thing that led me to the conclusion that what you value isn't beneficial. Namely it's that capitalism is threatening the human species because there is no marginalized society to export the global externalities of climate change onto (though many marginalized groups around the world and country are already feeling them).
|
On May 12 2019 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2019 22:03 BerserkSword wrote: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: [quote]
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. 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.
I do not think the U.S. is a meritocracy. Not sure what it has to do with this discussion though.
And I am almost certain that Bernie doesnt agree with you regarding Marxism vs capitalism lol
In fact whenever I heard him address the issue of him calling himself a socialist, he makes it clear that he is a "democratic socialist" as opposed to any form of communism which is what the Average Joe fears.
On May 12 2019 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote: 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.
I don't think the playing field is level. All I said was that not wanting to take on debt is an obstacle unless someone makes it out to be.
Also if you get accepted to medical school, and I'm assuming other professional schools like law school, dental school, pharmacy school, etc, it's borderline impossible not to get a loan. There was a guy in my med school class who had a record and received loans. One of my friends served time in prison for some serious crimes as an adult (not juvie) and got 250k student loans and is currently in nursing school.
|
On May 12 2019 12:32 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 11 2019 22:03 BerserkSword wrote: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: [quote]
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. 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. I do not think the U.S. is a meritocracy. Not sure what it has to do with this discussion though. And I am almost certain that Bernie doesnt agree with you regarding Marxism vs capitalism lol In fact whenever I heard him address the issue of him calling himself a socialist, he makes it clear that he is a "democratic socialist" as opposed to any form of communism which is what the Average Joe fears. Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote: 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. I don't think the playing field is level. All I said was that not wanting to take on debt is an obstacle unless someone makes it out to be. Also if you get accepted to medical school, and I'm assuming other professional schools like law school, dental school, pharmacy school, etc, it's borderline impossible not to get a loan. There was a guy in my med school class who had a record and received loans. One of my friends served time in prison for some serious crimes as an adult (not juvie) and got 250k student loans and is currently in nursing school.
I know Bernie doesn't agree, that's why I said a shot at it. I can't speak to your friends experience but $250k for nursing sounds like private loans. I also think you're misunderstanding what I mean by obstacle? Besides the point I've made about how parentage is out of the hands of a child and influences whether they even make it to applying to medical school or not (or need loans) it's clearly an obstacle and stress some doctors/professionals don't have to deal with.
I'm not arguing it's impossible to surmount, just that it's a barrier or obstacle not everyone faces. I don't know how you can possibly argue that two students, one with a massive debt and the other not that the one in debt doesn't face additional stress and hurdles to access that education compared to someone who's parents are paying for their full tuition?
|
On May 12 2019 13:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 12:32 BerserkSword wrote:On May 12 2019 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 11 2019 22:03 BerserkSword wrote: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: [quote]
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. 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. I do not think the U.S. is a meritocracy. Not sure what it has to do with this discussion though. And I am almost certain that Bernie doesnt agree with you regarding Marxism vs capitalism lol In fact whenever I heard him address the issue of him calling himself a socialist, he makes it clear that he is a "democratic socialist" as opposed to any form of communism which is what the Average Joe fears. On May 12 2019 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote: 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. I don't think the playing field is level. All I said was that not wanting to take on debt is an obstacle unless someone makes it out to be. Also if you get accepted to medical school, and I'm assuming other professional schools like law school, dental school, pharmacy school, etc, it's borderline impossible not to get a loan. There was a guy in my med school class who had a record and received loans. One of my friends served time in prison for some serious crimes as an adult (not juvie) and got 250k student loans and is currently in nursing school. I know Bernie doesn't agree, that's why I said a shot at it. I can't speak to your friends experience but $250k for nursing sounds like private loans. I also think you're misunderstanding what I mean by obstacle? Besides the point I've made about how parentage is out of the hands of a child and influences whether they even make it to applying to medical school or not (or need loans) it's clearly an obstacle and stress some doctors/professionals don't have to deal with. I'm not arguing it's impossible to surmount, just that it's a barrier or obstacle not everyone faces. I don't know how you can possibly argue that two students, one with a massive debt and the other not that the one in debt doesn't face additional stress and hurdles to access that education compared to someone who's parents are paying for their full tuition?
My friend has both private and government loans lol.
I don't consider "stress" an obstacle to education. Every endeavor requires some degree investment/risk.
The bottom line is that if someone want the education and has the credentials to back it up, they get access.
Even in your scenario where all education is free, surely there would be some sort of entrance exam? You do realize that some parents would have their kids better prepped than others right? There is no way to make sure parenting is equal. Even genetics play a role. As for the specific scenario of various professional schools, the applicants are all adults, so parent influence on deciding to apply is irrelevant.
|
On May 12 2019 13:23 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 13:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 12 2019 12:32 BerserkSword wrote:On May 12 2019 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 11 2019 22:03 BerserkSword wrote: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: [quote]
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. 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. I do not think the U.S. is a meritocracy. Not sure what it has to do with this discussion though. And I am almost certain that Bernie doesnt agree with you regarding Marxism vs capitalism lol In fact whenever I heard him address the issue of him calling himself a socialist, he makes it clear that he is a "democratic socialist" as opposed to any form of communism which is what the Average Joe fears. On May 12 2019 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote: 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. I don't think the playing field is level. All I said was that not wanting to take on debt is an obstacle unless someone makes it out to be. Also if you get accepted to medical school, and I'm assuming other professional schools like law school, dental school, pharmacy school, etc, it's borderline impossible not to get a loan. There was a guy in my med school class who had a record and received loans. One of my friends served time in prison for some serious crimes as an adult (not juvie) and got 250k student loans and is currently in nursing school. I know Bernie doesn't agree, that's why I said a shot at it. I can't speak to your friends experience but $250k for nursing sounds like private loans. I also think you're misunderstanding what I mean by obstacle? Besides the point I've made about how parentage is out of the hands of a child and influences whether they even make it to applying to medical school or not (or need loans) it's clearly an obstacle and stress some doctors/professionals don't have to deal with. I'm not arguing it's impossible to surmount, just that it's a barrier or obstacle not everyone faces. I don't know how you can possibly argue that two students, one with a massive debt and the other not that the one in debt doesn't face additional stress and hurdles to access that education compared to someone who's parents are paying for their full tuition? My friend has both private and government loans lol. I don't consider "stress" an obstacle to education. Every endeavor requires some degree investment/risk. The bottom line is that if someone want the education and has the credentials to back it up, they get access. Even in your scenario where all education is free, surely there would be some sort of entrance exam? You do realize that some parents would have their kids better prepped than others right? There is no way to make sure parenting is equal. Even genetics play a role. As for the specific scenario of various professional schools, the applicants are all adults, so parent influence on deciding to apply is irrelevant.
That's kind of the point I was making as well. If school is free there will either be entrance exams, or if not those (which is very unlikely) then failing classes will surely end in an end or suspension of said free schooling. I do still think it would be a better and more merit based system than what we currently have, but honestly I doubt it would be that much different. Taxes would likely have to go up to pay for this, and the people getting an education to get well paying jobs will likely be the ones paying the brunt of the raised taxes, while the super rich would just keep paying very low effective taxes due to all their write offs and other methods that the non super rich can't really have.
|
On May 12 2019 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 09:08 Falling wrote: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? At a certain point, I think yes. Put it another way- sure 50% is semi-arbitrary, but so is any number. How far would you push it? 75%? 90%? Because I think at a certain point, you would stop trying. Or do you think there is no limit to how far you could push that upper tax bracket number before people would stop? Or if there is a limit, what do you think it is? If I have to make $4000 to increase my income by $2000, that's rough, but I might do it. But if I have to make $4000 to increase my income by $1000... I don't know that I would bother. And if I had to make $4000 in order to increase my income by $400... ain't happening. I think there's something really nasty any time more than half your money you earn goes to the government who didn't earn it. I'm all for progressive taxes. I think the Canadian progressive tax is wonderful. But I can only go so far down that path. A lot of the problem is people thinking their work is worth far more than it is, particularly when one considers externalities that are often forced upon more marginalized people to make it possible to pay them as much as they get in the first place. That's to say the tax could be 90% and still not impact innovation. The issue imo is the brand of capitalists that think people need to be motivated by fear of poverty/death in the first place. We won't lose the Jonas Sulks or Frederick Bantings, but we might be lucky enough to lose some Murdochs and Bloombergs in a non-capitalist system. Taxes on those above the poverty line are essentially the money needed to keep capitalists getting richer but they are too greedy to let go of voluntarily. We wouldn't even need taxes if people just weren't trained to be so selfish. Most people who've ever worked in a tip/service industry know that people just over the poverty line are far more gracious and considerate than wealthy people. Which is to say it isn't the residents of Detroit or labor unions threatening to leave the country if they can't be as selfish as they'd like.
I want to give another example that illustrates Fallings point even more. With extremely progressive tax brackets, you can also run into situations where I can go work construction, make $100k/year, and take home $80k, or I can go become a doctor and make $300k/year.... But instead pay $150k tax because income would be taxed at say 65% at some high tax bracket, which some people here like. Now all of the sudden, instead of getting 3x the income, you're getting less than 2x the income. For spending the 10 healthiest years of your life in school, having to act very professional, possibly having a more stressful job, etc. Now unless someone truly is so altruistic and puts helping people or his status above his own well being, becoming a doctor starts looking like a pretty shit idea.
Government involvement always kills innovation, government can maintain status quo, but everything we're surrounded was invented or innovated by curious individuals who had ideas, and dedicated everything to it because they knew it could get them rich. Yes, maybe it doesn't seem fair that these people get more money, much like singers or actors, but they're the people who shape our world. The other thing that isn't taken account, is that for every rich person, there's probably 10 who tried and failed, so if you take the average of all the people who tried to become hockey players or something, it's not so much.
Most of your message is non-sense. In classic capitalism, death is undermentioned if anything, because people look at things in the long run (but in the long run we're all dead), don't agree with fear either.
I've worked at a bar, a poor person has never tipped me $200 Insignificant personal experience, for me the tips were fairly similar, but really poor people wouldn't tip, wealthier people almost always did (tough to tell the difference between a bum and a billionaire sometimes though lol). Might be one of those if you were homeless and now are well off, you'd be more likely to give money to homeless people situations though. Either way, wealthy people give orders of magnitude more money to charity than poor people.
Honestly though, this thread is really triggering me, I need to not visit it. When I was younger, I generally agreed with a lot on the websites I visited. In this thread in specific, most opinions seem uneducated and jejune, and while there's an obvious bias in this thread due to its democraric nature... I feel like the odd one out here, and the thinking I see here just disappoints me. I'm 24 and feel like the 70 year old grandparent calling to kill all the gays. Anyway, it's just a feeling, but a chilling one. Lately I've been on the internet a lot less, and been focusing on work, so maybe that created the disconnect, but my views align well with the friends who opened/bought businesses, and the industry here as a whole... Ugh, sorry, I'm rambling about myself now, but it's the first time I've had such conflicted views with everyonein the whole thread. First time I've felt don't belong on this website.
|
On May 12 2019 13:33 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 13:23 BerserkSword wrote:On May 12 2019 13:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 12 2019 12:32 BerserkSword wrote:On May 12 2019 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 11 2019 22:03 BerserkSword wrote: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: [quote]
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. 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. I do not think the U.S. is a meritocracy. Not sure what it has to do with this discussion though. And I am almost certain that Bernie doesnt agree with you regarding Marxism vs capitalism lol In fact whenever I heard him address the issue of him calling himself a socialist, he makes it clear that he is a "democratic socialist" as opposed to any form of communism which is what the Average Joe fears. On May 12 2019 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote: 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. I don't think the playing field is level. All I said was that not wanting to take on debt is an obstacle unless someone makes it out to be. Also if you get accepted to medical school, and I'm assuming other professional schools like law school, dental school, pharmacy school, etc, it's borderline impossible not to get a loan. There was a guy in my med school class who had a record and received loans. One of my friends served time in prison for some serious crimes as an adult (not juvie) and got 250k student loans and is currently in nursing school. I know Bernie doesn't agree, that's why I said a shot at it. I can't speak to your friends experience but $250k for nursing sounds like private loans. I also think you're misunderstanding what I mean by obstacle? Besides the point I've made about how parentage is out of the hands of a child and influences whether they even make it to applying to medical school or not (or need loans) it's clearly an obstacle and stress some doctors/professionals don't have to deal with. I'm not arguing it's impossible to surmount, just that it's a barrier or obstacle not everyone faces. I don't know how you can possibly argue that two students, one with a massive debt and the other not that the one in debt doesn't face additional stress and hurdles to access that education compared to someone who's parents are paying for their full tuition? My friend has both private and government loans lol. I don't consider "stress" an obstacle to education. Every endeavor requires some degree investment/risk. The bottom line is that if someone want the education and has the credentials to back it up, they get access. Even in your scenario where all education is free, surely there would be some sort of entrance exam? You do realize that some parents would have their kids better prepped than others right? There is no way to make sure parenting is equal. Even genetics play a role. As for the specific scenario of various professional schools, the applicants are all adults, so parent influence on deciding to apply is irrelevant. That's kind of the point I was making as well. If school is free there will either be entrance exams, or if not those (which is very unlikely) then failing classes will surely end in an end or suspension of said free schooling. I do still think it would be a better and more merit based system than what we currently have, but honestly I doubt it would be that much different. Taxes would likely have to go up to pay for this, and the people getting an education to get well paying jobs will likely be the ones paying the brunt of the raised taxes, while the super rich would just keep paying very low effective taxes due to all their write offs and other methods that the non super rich can't really have.
Few things to address with both arguments.
I'm not sure what you're arguing Bezerk? That debt isn't an investment/risk or that debt and risk aren't barriers? I mean I think it quite literally restricts access to schools, houses, food, basically anything you get with money, so I'm not sure where to go with that.
Both of you raise entrance exams, we don't need them.
On failing; Instead of the punishment model we see in the justice system and increasingly the entire educational system, we need a restorative approach that tries to figure out why people are struggling (before grades come out) and work with them to remedy those issues in healthy ways.
I'm no MMT expert but taxes are not the only way to pay for such ambitions. "getting well paying jobs" is relative. most people* exist on a somewhat reasonable income/wealth scale (save those in poverty), without massive concentrations in a small handful of people's hands the vast majority of people would see wage increases.
I don't begrudge those who currently benefit from the college/economic version of the 1950's NBA (I'm talking about my earlier reference to artificial barriers, not specifically segregation) for defending it, but like the Champions from those years, the system you're defending is far from the best imo.
|
On May 12 2019 13:33 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 13:23 BerserkSword wrote:On May 12 2019 13:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 12 2019 12:32 BerserkSword wrote:On May 12 2019 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 11 2019 22:03 BerserkSword wrote: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: [quote]
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. 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. I do not think the U.S. is a meritocracy. Not sure what it has to do with this discussion though. And I am almost certain that Bernie doesnt agree with you regarding Marxism vs capitalism lol In fact whenever I heard him address the issue of him calling himself a socialist, he makes it clear that he is a "democratic socialist" as opposed to any form of communism which is what the Average Joe fears. On May 12 2019 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote: 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. I don't think the playing field is level. All I said was that not wanting to take on debt is an obstacle unless someone makes it out to be. Also if you get accepted to medical school, and I'm assuming other professional schools like law school, dental school, pharmacy school, etc, it's borderline impossible not to get a loan. There was a guy in my med school class who had a record and received loans. One of my friends served time in prison for some serious crimes as an adult (not juvie) and got 250k student loans and is currently in nursing school. I know Bernie doesn't agree, that's why I said a shot at it. I can't speak to your friends experience but $250k for nursing sounds like private loans. I also think you're misunderstanding what I mean by obstacle? Besides the point I've made about how parentage is out of the hands of a child and influences whether they even make it to applying to medical school or not (or need loans) it's clearly an obstacle and stress some doctors/professionals don't have to deal with. I'm not arguing it's impossible to surmount, just that it's a barrier or obstacle not everyone faces. I don't know how you can possibly argue that two students, one with a massive debt and the other not that the one in debt doesn't face additional stress and hurdles to access that education compared to someone who's parents are paying for their full tuition? My friend has both private and government loans lol. I don't consider "stress" an obstacle to education. Every endeavor requires some degree investment/risk. The bottom line is that if someone want the education and has the credentials to back it up, they get access. Even in your scenario where all education is free, surely there would be some sort of entrance exam? You do realize that some parents would have their kids better prepped than others right? There is no way to make sure parenting is equal. Even genetics play a role. As for the specific scenario of various professional schools, the applicants are all adults, so parent influence on deciding to apply is irrelevant. That's kind of the point I was making as well. If school is free there will either be entrance exams, or if not those (which is very unlikely) then failing classes will surely end in an end or suspension of said free schooling. I do still think it would be a better and more merit based system than what we currently have, but honestly I doubt it would be that much different. Taxes would likely have to go up to pay for this, and the people getting an education to get well paying jobs will likely be the ones paying the brunt of the raised taxes, while the super rich would just keep paying very low effective taxes due to all their write offs and other methods that the non super rich can't really have.
I like the idea of schooling being heavily subsidized, because it offers tremendous benefits to society in reduction of crime, innovation, people think about the future more, less discrimination, etc... But I do think it should cost something, so the potential student thinks about whether they actually want this, and would therefore also be more careful in choosing a degree that will make him money (and therefore contribute to society). In current US dollars, I think $25-$45k US dollars for a 4 year degree, and access to non-profit (low interest) student loans is a fair cost.
Wealthier people pay exponentially more taxes, because more income and more higher tax on the income. Don't just assume that writing things off is just some magic black box, and the US is working hard to cut off any ways to abuse it, from offshore companies, to simplifying the tax law. Wealthy people pay a lot of tax.
Initially I was against it, but I think that the right way to fight an income gap is through estate taxes. If someone with $100bil dies and has to give $40bil away, they're never cheated from their money, but it gives tons of money to the government, and doesn't create an endless cycle of the super rich getting to the top, and staying there for generations.
|
On May 12 2019 11:43 iPlaY.NettleS 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. This is totally dependant on the courses people choose to do.There is no guarantee that a university degree will assure even a middle class lifestyle anymore. Larger numbers of students doing free gender studies and art history degrees at the expense of the taxpayer is something that should turn people off the idea of free university.Some courses offer more benefit to society than other courses, fact.
Anecdotal but my roommate does way more good for people and society In social work with a women studies and minor in gender and sexuality then I do with my stem degree working in a lab.
I personally think stem degrees can learn a thing or two from some of these “useless” coursework.
|
|
|
|