Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Was just thinking. I guess it comes down to responsibility. I am not responsible for everyone else in the country or the world. I am responsible for my family and anyone else I may choose. You are not allowed to tell me I'm responsible for someone I've never met. So who is responsible for themselves? Themselves...or the government...or everyone else?

I say you are responsible for yourself. If you fail...too bad. If you succeed...great. If you succeed extremely...also great. That is how business works too. A business that sucks...dies. A business with a great product and service succeeds. It weeds out the weeds. It keeps people and the country strong.

I am not responsible for you, your decisions or your choices. If you want someone to be responsible for you, you better get used to doing as they tell you. You better get used to doing things you don't want to. You better get used to losing your freedom.

Ok, so let me get this straight. IF your house catches fire, or you are attacked in a home invasion, or you have a heart attack, you don't want any help? Also you are going to build your own roads and infrastructure to use? Because if you need help in ANY of those things, I am, as a taxpayer, somewhat responsible for you. I am sorry, but that "every man is an island" mindset doesnt take into account that we cant exist as a society without taking responsibility for the common good to some degree. You cant have a civilization or a civil society if its every man for himself. THe rich don't want to pay taxes, but they want to keep using all the infrastructure I pay for, which means, they want me to be responsible for them. For example, I dont have or use a private jet, but a lot of public money and tax subsidies goes to all the little private airports they use all over the country, paid by ME. and Also rich business owners have trucks that use the highways and choke it with traffic, making me have to sit in gridlock, use more gas, and add wear and tear to the roads I as a taxpayer pay for. And they get to use them for free? I mean, if I am not responsible for them, shouldnt they build their OWN roads and airports to use? Also, a lot of corporations get govt subsidies to operate. Just do a web search on govt funding of oil companies. There is your "free money" and "free stuff" Its funny to me that the right wingers who are the most critical of "free stuff" dont realize that the base of their party, as Bush put it, the "haves and have mores", are some of the BIGGEST freeloaders of govt money. I dont disagree with your assertion that people should be self sufficient, but it should apply to BOTH the rich and poor.If the one percent doesnt want to be responsible for me, thats fine, as long as they dont expect me to be responsible for them.

a reply to: openminded2011

You also help pay for NFL stadiums that are built with taxpayer dollars..... but if you go to a game.... you have to pay big bucks for a ticket.
Yep, democratic socialism is great.

a reply to: Irishhaf

He wants to close the offshore tax loopholes. Which will bring over a trillion dollars back to the us

a reply to: openminded2011

I wish I could star you twenty times over.

a reply to: butcherguy

Pretty sure the stadiums are paid for by ticket and concession sales. They might get some tax subsidies but the NFL pays the majority. Your comparison is completely wrong

a reply to: stutteringp0et

There is an option to claim an economic hardship. Also when I did my taxes on turbo tax I put down that insurance was too expensive in my area (northern Illinois) and they waived the penalty.

a reply to: conscientiousobserver

How is he going to do that? This is an idea....a dream.

originally posted by: openminded2011

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Was just thinking. I guess it comes down to responsibility. I am not responsible for everyone else in the country or the world. I am responsible for my family and anyone else I may choose. You are not allowed to tell me I'm responsible for someone I've never met. So who is responsible for themselves? Themselves...or the government...or everyone else?

I say you are responsible for yourself. If you fail...too bad. If you succeed...great. If you succeed extremely...also great. That is how business works too. A business that sucks...dies. A business with a great product and service succeeds. It weeds out the weeds. It keeps people and the country strong.

I am not responsible for you, your decisions or your choices. If you want someone to be responsible for you, you better get used to doing as they tell you. You better get used to doing things you don't want to. You better get used to losing your freedom.

Ok, so let me get this straight. IF your house catches fire, or you are attacked in a home invasion, or you have a heart attack, you don't want any help? Also you are going to build your own roads and infrastructure to use? Because if you need help in ANY of those things, I am, as a taxpayer, somewhat responsible for you. I am sorry, but that "every man is an island" mindset doesnt take into account that we cant exist as a society without taking responsibility for the common good to some degree. You cant have a civilization or a civil society if its every man for himself. THe rich don't want to pay taxes, but they want to keep using all the infrastructure I pay for, which means, they want me to be responsible for them. For example, I dont have or use a private jet, but a lot of public money and tax subsidies goes to all the little private airports they use all over the country, paid by ME. and Also rich business owners have trucks that use the highways and choke it with traffic, making me have to sit in gridlock, use more gas, and add wear and tear to the roads I as a taxpayer pay for. And they get to use them for free? I mean, if I am not responsible for them, shouldnt they build their OWN roads and airports to use? Also, a lot of corporations get govt subsidies to operate. Just do a web search on govt funding of oil companies. There is your "free money" and "free stuff" Its funny to me that the right wingers who are the most critical of "free stuff" dont realize that the base of their party, as Bush put it, the "haves and have mores", are some of the BIGGEST freeloaders of govt money. I dont disagree with your assertion that people should be self sufficient, but it should apply to BOTH the rich and poor.If the one percent doesnt want to be responsible for me, thats fine, as long as they dont expect me to be responsible for them.

I pay taxes...so do these "rich" people and companies. If you don't like the current laws..change them. I pay for the local fire department, hospitals, roads, etc. Yes...I PAY FOR THEM and therefore I get to utilize them. Business pay significantly more for them and get the same rights to access them.

And while I have concern and contribute to my community, the government dictating to whom and for what beyond the normal taxes is not right and shouldn't be allowed. I will pay my taxes and if I wish to contribute to others...it is my choice. Not something YOUR government should dictate and then choose who gets what.

a reply to: conscientiousobserver

In many cases, local tax payers end up on the hook for NFL stadiums. Not all, but many.

On a case by case basis, that is not democratic socialism, it is a mild form of fascism.

And the NFL itself pays no federal taxes.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: openminded2011

You also help pay for NFL stadiums that are built with taxpayer dollars..... but if you go to a game.... you have to pay big bucks for a ticket.
Yep, democratic socialism is great.

socialism

i dont think this word means what you think it means


edit: en.wikipedia.org...
a little harder to hate right?

a reply to: Kali74

I'd like to give you what economists call an asswhooping. You want affordable healthcare, the opportunity for a good job, your vote to count, business out of the regulatory process, and the wealthiest Americans to "pay their share."

Your so called "affordable" healthcare, comes at a hefty price. You see, the "wealthy" (annual income of over 415,000) get taxed 39% JUST on income alone. I'm not going to get in to how much money everyone is really left over after sales tax, gas tax, food tax, and 20+ other taxes we see in our day to day lives, because income tax alone should prove my point. Prior to 2010, income tax per bracket ranged the same, except for the wealthiest (over 415,000). After the Affordable Health Care act became ObamaLaw, the tax rate went up to 39%, a 4% increase. Now, under genius Bernie Sanders, there would be 3 more tax brackets added. 45% for 500,000 and up, 50% for 2,000,000 and up, and 54% for 10,000,000 and up. Regardless of how he came up with these numbers, I'd now like to talk about incentives. Empirically (that means it's objective (proven) evidence), Raising taxes leads to a decrease in GDP as well as PPP. Regardless of any emotion you have towards the poor or the hatred you have towards the wealthy, increasing taxes lowers the standard of living. Why? Because less money in the average person's wallet means there is less to save or spend. "But were going to tax the rich..." ah. The rich. Rich people do not take their money and shove it in a mattress. They do the only two things that people can do with it, save it or spend it. Saving it is usually to gain more of it (usually done through CDs in banks) in a small percentile, usually 2-5% increase in gains. What do they do with these gains? Well, majority of the uber rich own companies. Usually, they spend large sums of their cash on luxury goods (houses, cars, boats, etc..) and take smaller (roughly 10-15% of income) and re-invest it into these companies. These companies, which once re-invested into, become more appealing to those who consume the products. The wealthy do this because they have to stay competitive. Why? Because there are always competitors who are looking to undercut the prices. So they re-invest in new technology, competitive wages, and better products so they can stay wealthy. Now, while it is true, they get wealthier and wealthier, so do the citizens employed by said. In this simple process, everyone has benefited, as well as the GDP. Now, getting back to taxes. No true business man or woman has allegiance to the American people, at least not in the way you apparently think. That's why companies take their business overseas, where tax rates are considerably lower (uh..hello their HONG KONG). In doing so, they create cheaper products while also maintaining lower tax rates. So, ending on this note, what would make you think that a wealthy american would not change his citizenship and take their company with them so as to avoid taxes? The answer. ..is nothing. Regardless of how you FEEL about the rich and the wealth inequality, it is better than having nothing at all. ObamaCare is only the beginning. Regardless of how well it works, regardless of how many lives it saves, the people being taxed 40% don't care, and they most certainly won't if they are taxed 54% (the real number is 90% after you take into affect the other taxes Bernie wants, by the way). If you tax them, they will leave, and we will have nothing.
Wow. All for the price of affordable health care. Congratulations. You got what you wanted. 4 more years.

a reply to: matafuchs

Ummm rewrite the tax code. Idk

I like Bernie Sanders more than I should - there's a real choice building up for this election.

However- despite the fact that im a physician in the top 4% (far removed from the 0.1%), very anti-inequity, and very worried about our economic future - Bernie will do the right thing and pay for all this progress...with high high taxes.

Up to 74% for peeps like me. And I don't feel rich at all!
Many Bostonians live far better than 90% of the country, so their foolish liberal slant comes from that fantasy world.
Bernie is on the right track - equity for all. His implementation will include a VAT tax, and more. Maybe it's time for the US to pay the pied piper. Food for thought. * But companies, and the wealthy, will leave (like the post said above). How does one pay for all this without alienating that influential group?

Maybe a flat tax, and a very low corporate tax, would work wonders instead. And pay for it all with more people working for more, and paying more into the system that way...

Take some time to skim this, from today's NY Times online.

a reply to: drphilxr

I would like a detailed explanation on the word "equality" and what that philosophically means. Income equality? The natural rights that all men and women are given once born? To most philosophers of the enlightenment era (Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Thomas Jefferson), equality is defined as the right to PURSUE happiness for the individual, but not at the expense of others. A flat tax is an option that adheres to the minds of many individuals, and it is something that should be discussed extensively. The problem is, that a flat tax would hover around (just estimates) 30-33% Bernie's socialist regime. While I'd certainly find that to be objectively "equal" on a monetary standpoint, the bottom 40% of Americans would be living in poverty comparable to 1930's Hoovervilles. There are a few ways around this though. What if government welfare was cut back substantially, so that the flat tax hovered around...say...15%? Wouldn't that stimulate economic growth? Penny for your thoughts. I like where you are with the Corporate Tax though. There should be Corporate Taxes at, say, 7% so that we can become a competitive market with China, whose Corporate Tax rate in Hong Kong is at 16.5%. We could even keep minimum wage as to stop those greedy capitalist bastards from exploiting hard working Americans.

To loosely paraphrase Samuel Clemens, Mark Twain. "If voting really changed anything, if it really made a difference, if it really mattered, you wouldn't be allowed to do it." a reply to: Kali74

Evern the HuffPost does not like this lefty look at the economy and they LOVE the left...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

A panel of reporters led by MSNBC's Chris Matthews agreed Saturday that Sen. Bernie Sanders' plan to use a tax on financial transactions to pay for tuition at public colleges is cheap, pie-in-the-sky pandering with little merit as public policy.

Their analysis did not mention the credible studies that project a financial transactions tax, aimed at discouraging speculation, would be a major source of revenue for the U.S. government. Nor did they note the many countries where such a tax has already been successfully implemented.

Instead, Matthews, MSNBC's Alex Seitz-Wald and Reuters' Luciana Lopez argued that Sanders' plan and its appeal to voters grow out of a kind of childish naivete that fails to acknowledge tough realities.

originally posted by: elitegamer23
money.cnn.com...

Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%.
In addition, poverty would plummet to a record low 6%, as opposed to the CBO's forecast of 13.9%. The U.S. economy would grow by 5.3% per year, instead of 2.1%, and the nation's $1.3 trillion deficit would turn into a large surplus by Sanders' second term.

That's probably overly optimistic, but possible.

Bernie has the right idea on the domestic front. His big weakness is his support of the military/MIC, wars, etc. They relate to each other because unless we get the wars/MIC under control, we'll never get out of the economic mess, long term.

a reply to: matafuchs

Your post suggests that the Left-Right Paradigm has major flaws, eh?