Bernie Sanders Defends Democratic Socialism

[Kartoffel]

I'd be happy to pay 40% in taxes. If we had good roads, good healthcare at negligible cost/hassle, a social safety net, essentially free college, etc.

Like those Scandinavian and other European countries that Americans often describe as communist.

 

[Cirion]

No, I don't think that 30% for everything over 80k is much, and I don't think that social security "taxes" are bad. Here in Germany, I pay much higher taxes, and I don't feel suffocated. We also have problems with rising costs (especially housing) but that is actually a symptom of increasing income inequality. The problem you describe for California is of course a real one. But the problem of increasing geographic inequality (ordinary people getting pushed out their neighbourhoods by IT people, etc) won't be solved by lowering taxes on people that are already in the top percentiles. I would really like to hear your answer to my questions regarding who is going to pay for the missing revenue, if taxes are drastically lowered as you propose.

arrrrggh, I am really trying to not blow my top, but this is what drives me crazy LOL. Dude! I LITERALLY said I would be possibly up for INCREASING the taxes in the top bracket! What I said is I want the taxes for MIDDLE class to lower this is NOT TOP BRACKET!

Here's some data to maybe bring my point across more clearly.

You can see clearly that the top 20% of people pay 80% of taxes.

Who are the top 20%? They are people who earn more than $111,000 a year (based upon a quick google search)

Therefore EIGHTY PERCENT (80%) of government revenue comes from people making 111,000 a year.

Thus even if you took away tax ENTIRELY from people making less than 111,000 a year, you'd only lose 20% of revenue, and if necessary, you could always simply increase taxes on the people making over $111,000 a year by just a few % (not even by 20%) and literally the government revenue would remain the SAME. Make sense now?

And since 80% (the bulk of people) earn less than $111,000 a year, you've increased the buying power of 80% (MOST) americans, thus dramatically fueling the economy, all while not impacting government revenue at ALL (or not by much).

 

[managing]

No, I don't think that 30% for everything over 80k is much, and I don't think that social security "taxes" are bad. Here in Germany, I pay much higher taxes, and I don't feel suffocated. We also have problems with rising costs (especially housing) but that is actually a symptom of increasing income inequality. The problem you describe for California is of course a real one. But the problem of increasing geographic inequality ("ordinary" people getting pushed out of their neighbourhoods by IT people, etc) won't be solved by lowering taxes on people that are already in the top percentiles. I would really like to hear your answer to my questions regarding who is going to pay for the missing revenue, if taxes are drastically lowered as you propose.

Well Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump insist it trickles down. The rich get richer, and hire more poor people. Right?

It is a popular meme among some Americans to bash Europe for their high taxes. But it is painfully obvious if one spends any time in Western Europe that you get what you pay for. I spent some time with friends from the Hamburg area a few months ago. Very important from a Peat perspective is that they have a much lower stress level. Abundant transportation. Free education/healthcare. Social safety net. Etc. Low stress is valuable, no? They did decide to move to an outlying community and commute to Hamburg because housing costs were too much in Hamburg. But, then again, they have great trains, buses, and roads to choose from. Oh, and of course, if they decide to have a child, generous family leave for both the mother AND father.

 

[Cirion]

I really think people (and I'm not necessarily thinking of anyone specifically here) need to understand that owning a business and having other people work for you, and/or investing will ALWAYS, regardless of the economy, make you more wealthy than living as a 9-5 wage slave. Why do you think I want to retire as soon as I can build up a good portfolio? Nobody wants to be a 9-5 slave, least of all me. Rather than complain about it, people need to take advantage of this fact. This fact of life simply will never change in the forseeable future. Capital gain tax is only 15%. Rather than gripe about it, take advantage of it. I plan to. I only pay 15% on my brokerage account gains. Yeah I do complain about income tax from the income on my current 9-5, but once I no longer make income (retired), I will no longer care one bit. No amount of complaining will ever make a 9-5 worker ever be as successful or make as much money as someone who owns his own business and/or invests intelligently. That's just how it is. Complain about it, or play the game. I choose the latter. BTW many "rich" people (high income) still are not wealthy (low net worth) and live paycheck to paycheck. Wealth =/= rich, and even as middle class you can become quite wealthy. I happen to know there is a guy in my job that has at least 8 digit net worth purely from a low 6 digit income (probably barely more than 100-150k). Wealth is built through intelligence, not necessarily income.

 

[managing]

Like those Scandinavian and other European countries that Americans often describe as communist.

LOL, yes. And the sad (from our perspective) truth is that the taxes are not even that much higher than in the US. And for the lowest income earners they are actually lower. My experience is mainly with France and Germany but I know Spain to be similar as well.

 

[yerrag]

Singapore top income tax rate - 22%
Hong Kong top income tax rate - 15%

In Singapore, tax is ONLY on income earned. No capital gains tax. No inheritance tax.

How do they do it? Are the people suffering from low tax rates? Are they less educated? Do they have roads full of potholes? Do they have access to clean water? Don't they have the best transit systems in the world? Is their health care system inadequate for them?

Or maybe, the government are good stewards of public money, and the people are also appreciative of good governance, and are informed enough to elect representatives that truly represent them?

Would Bernie get elected here? Would Sadiq Khan get elected here?

Does it matter much whether stewardship is entrusted to the government or to the rich who get to keep their earnings? Really, what will the rich do will all that money, carry it to their graves? No, they reinvest it responsibly, in businesses that can justify their keep in returns. And is so doing, they also provide good jobs. And isn't this what matters most, jobs? I mean good jobs - not starvation level jobs. The government will not be able to allocate capital as well as entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs will look for the highest returns in their businesses. And with good margins, they are able to hire high-value employees and reward them with a meaningful and well-paying jobs. Even for the lower-skilled workers, they are happy to be with a company that provides them with security, and the best security they can have is a well-run business that will not run to the ground. And unlike many US municipalities, pensions are very, very well-funded.

 

[Cirion]

Or maybe, the government are good stewards of public money, and the people are also appreciative of good governance, and are informed enough to elect representatives that truly represent them?

ding ding ding... we have a winner

People think the answer is tax tax tax. The better answer is learn how to manage money. Simple, but a thought that goes beyond the grasp or capability of the low IQ people in authority in america.

It's a disease in this country. Your average joe has zero grasp how to handle money either. Foreclosures, bankruptcies, people unable to save $1000, oh my... and no, it has almost nothing to do with "increased student loans or mortgage bills". No, people just don't know how to manage money. It's as simple as that. Contrary to popular belief you don't need to go to college at all, contrary to popular belief you don't need a $400,000 house... contrary to popular belief you don't need to fund your kids college, don't have to go on expensive vacations every yr, don't have to buy the brand new PC and tv every year, don't have to pay $50-100 frequently at restaurants, don't have to buy every video game that comes out full price at $60 or even $100 for collectors editions, don't have to have that shiny $50k car, don't need to spend $100k on a wedding so on and so forth etc...

NOW, to be SOMEWHAT fair, no one is taught anymore how to get wealthy or manage money. In school all you're taught is how to be a good subservient boy (or girl), you're literally trained to be an employee from an early age onwards. I'm reading about this in Rich dad poor dad. The poor dad told him you just need to do well in school get a degree etc and the rich dad was like screw that man, if you wanna be wealthy you need to break the norms, take risks, invest in stocks, create a business (or two or three), don't even worry about school since all they do in school is teach you to fear failure and owning a business or even investing is NOT for someone who fears failure. I'm risking a lot by putting a bunch of money in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency. But no one made it big without taking risks. Fortune favors the bold, as they say, after all. Maybe I'll lose it (and I don't even fear it, since I'm only putting in what I'm willing to lose), but maybe I'll win big =)

 

[yerrag]

ding ding ding... we have a winner

People think the answer is tax tax tax. The better answer is learn how to manage money. Simple, but a thought that goes beyond the grasp or capability of the low IQ people in authority in america.

It's a disease in this country. Your average joe has zero grasp how to handle money either. Foreclosures, bankruptcies, people unable to save $1000, oh my... and no, it has almost nothing to do with "increased student loans or mortgage bills". No, people just don't know how to manage money. It's as simple as that. Contrary to popular belief you don't need to go to college at all, contrary to popular belief you don't need a $400,000 house... contrary to popular belief you don't need to fund your kids college, don't have to go on expensive vacations every yr, don't have to buy the brand new PC and tv every year, don't have to pay $50-100 frequently at restaurants, don't have to buy every video game that comes out full price at $60 or even $100 for collectors editions, don't have to have that shiny $50k car, don't need to spend $100k on a wedding so on and so forth etc...

NOW, to be SOMEWHAT fair, no one is taught anymore how to get wealthy or manage money. In school all you're taught is how to be a good subservient boy (or girl), you're literally trained to be an employee from an early age onwards. I'm reading about this in Rich dad poor dad. The poor dad told him you just need to do well in school get a degree etc and the rich dad was like screw that man, if you wanna be wealthy you need to break the norms, take risks, invest in stocks, create a business (or two or three), don't even worry about school since all they do in school is teach you to fear failure and owning a business or even investing is NOT for someone who fears failure. I'm risking a lot by putting a bunch of money in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency. But no one made it big without taking risks. Fortune favors the bold, as they say, after all. Maybe I'll lose it (and I don't even fear it, since I'm only putting in what I'm willing to lose), but maybe I'll win big =)

I can't blame you for taking risks in things where you're the smallest cog in a Rube Goldberg machine that is the US economy. Putting money in stocks, or property, or crypto, or gold - those are your only options. Starting a business--nah. Too much regulations, you might even get sued for something from somewhere by someone from out of the blues. If you want risk, go to a less developed country. Less of the tyranny of unjust laws. Unjust because they may look good on theory but because they're gamed by players in the ****** system, you become a victim of the system, a system that's meant to protect but morphed by lawyers and politicians into a monster.

 

[InChristAlone]

ding ding ding... we have a winner

People think the answer is tax tax tax. The better answer is learn how to manage money. Simple, but a thought that goes beyond the grasp or capability of the low IQ people in authority in america.

It's a disease in this country. Your average joe has zero grasp how to handle money either. Foreclosures, bankruptcies, people unable to save $1000, oh my... and no, it has almost nothing to do with "increased student loans or mortgage bills". No, people just don't know how to manage money. It's as simple as that. Contrary to popular belief you don't need to go to college at all, contrary to popular belief you don't need a $400,000 house... contrary to popular belief you don't need to fund your kids college, don't have to go on expensive vacations every yr, don't have to buy the brand new PC and tv every year, don't have to pay $50-100 frequently at restaurants, don't have to buy every video game that comes out full price at $60 or even $100 for collectors editions, don't have to have that shiny $50k car, don't need to spend $100k on a wedding so on and so forth etc...

NOW, to be SOMEWHAT fair, no one is taught anymore how to get wealthy or manage money. In school all you're taught is how to be a good subservient boy (or girl), you're literally trained to be an employee from an early age onwards. I'm reading about this in Rich dad poor dad. The poor dad told him you just need to do well in school get a degree etc and the rich dad was like screw that man, if you wanna be wealthy you need to break the norms, take risks, invest in stocks, create a business (or two or three), don't even worry about school since all they do in school is teach you to fear failure and owning a business or even investing is NOT for someone who fears failure. I'm risking a lot by putting a bunch of money in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency. But no one made it big without taking risks. Fortune favors the bold, as they say, after all. Maybe I'll lose it (and I don't even fear it, since I'm only putting in what I'm willing to lose), but maybe I'll win big =)

I really liked what you have had to say in this thread Cirion, well done! Be intelligent with money, know how to invest, know how to climb the ladder, these things are definitely not taught in school but someone with a fairly high IQ can teach themselves. My husband has done it thankfully! We have 50K sitting in the bank and other investments for retirement and such, going to be buying real estate in Florida soon. But he does have a high IQ and is a perfectionist at his job so he will likely be moving up the corporate ladder before retirement. And NO we will not be happy about a Dem president taxing 30% off the top of our income. He worked freaking hard from rock bottom even when he made 12 bucks an hr I still stayed at home raising my babies we didn't live beyond our means, though his parents did pay off his student loans for us. We aren't going to give it to the government to decide what to do with it. Thankfully in Florida no state tax, but you deal with them not caring about the environment pretty much at all.

 

[Cirion]

I really liked what you have had to say in this thread Cirion, well done! Be intelligent with money, know how to invest, know how to climb the ladder, these things are definitely not taught in school but someone with a fairly high IQ can teach themselves. My husband has done it thankfully! We have 50K sitting in the bank and other investments for retirement and such, going to be buying real estate in Florida soon. But he does have a high IQ and is a perfectionist at his job so he will likely be moving up the corporate ladder before retirement. And NO we will not be happy about a Dem president taxing 30% off the top of our income. He worked freaking hard from rock bottom, we aren't going to give it to the government to decide what to do with it. Thankfully in Florida no state tax, but you deal with them not caring about the environment pretty much at all.

I am jealous. I want to live on the beach in FL, ideally before I retire, but probably for sure when I do retire. Florida has warm weather and beaches, surprisingly low cost of living in some places like melbourne, and like you said no state tax. Good stuff.

 

[Kartoffel]

How do they do it? Are the people suffering from low tax rates? Are they less educated? Do they have roads full of potholes? Do they have access to clean water? Don't they have the best transit systems in the world? Is their health care system inadequate for them?

Hong Kong is one of the few countries on earth managing to produce a greater Gini coeficient than the U.S. and it will be difficult not to notice all the people living in makeshift tents and wooden shelters.

In Singapore, tax is ONLY on income earned. No capital gains tax. No inheritance tax.

Brilliant idea. Do not tax the things only the wealthiest people are using to a significant degree. That will make things fairer for your average joe.

 

[Kartoffel]

He worked freaking hard from rock bottom even when he made 12 bucks an hr I still stayed at home raising my babies we didn't live beyond our means, though his parents did pay off his student loans for us.

Oh good, but what happens to the people who don't have nice parents that have 100k+ on the side to pay of their childrens immense loans, or those moms that didn't manage to score a highly intelligent husband that will earn enought to support their families?

 

[yerrag]

Hong Kong is one of the few countries on earth managing to produce a greater Gini coeficient than the U.S. and it will be difficult not to notice all the people living in makeshift tents and wooden shelters.

And it won't be difficult to notice that Lee Ka Shing was a poor orphan in Hong Kong and he became a tycoon. But forget about him. Let's see how much hope these people have in bettering their lives and compare it to say San Francisco and LA and see how much hope the homeless there have.

 

[lampofred]

I think individual biological principles can apply to some degree to entire nations as well. An inefficient cell is a cancerous one, an inefficient country that cannot make the most of its tax revenue (our taxes are stuck in lactic acid instead of glucose oxidation) is a cancerous nation on the verge of degeneration. The way to fix it is to lower over-stimulation and restore quiescence, the way to do that is to simply do less and stop trying so hard, which points in the direction of a smaller government.

On a biological level, Republican small government policies seem to be the way to go forward. Democratic large government policies will have the opposite result of what they intend -- less results for more work/taxes.

 

[yerrag]

Brilliant idea. Do not tax the things only the wealthiest people are using to a significant degree. That will make things fairer for your average joe.

What's fair? Tax everybody to death while transferring the wealth to useless schemes cooked up by politicians to make them more needed while buoying themselves up their sinking lifeboat?

 

[Cirion]

Oh good, but what happens to the people who don't have nice parents that have 100k on the side to pay of their childrens immense loans, or those moms that didn't manage to score a highly intelligent husband that will earn enought to support their families?

Doesn't matter. You can always reduce expenditures. Most people aren't willing to do it though. It really doesn't take a genius to realize you can't afford a $200,000 house on a $30,000 income for example, but you'd be amazed at what people try to buy. And then they are shocked when they go bankrupt. There are always incredible deals you can get. I knew a couple dudes that shared a $300/month apartment (so only $150 each). And it's not even in the ghettos or anything.

I not only survived but thrived on a $24k income in an expensive part of Atlanta just a mile off campus of Georgia tech. I still managed to save $5000 in a couple years.

Did you miss the part where I said school is optional? Don't get loans in the first place, then you won't have to pay them. Problem solved before there was even a problem. Loans AKA liabilities are almost never a good idea, except for a mortgage, and even then, its best to pay in cash (If you can). Can't afford this? Refer back to the $150/month rental.

hint - student loans are NOT an asset. Repeat - student loans are NOT AN ASSET! It's amazing how many people think they are.

 

[yerrag]

I think individual biological principles can apply to some degree to entire nations as well. An inefficient cell is a cancerous one, an inefficient country that cannot make the most of its tax revenue (our taxes are stuck in lactic acid instead of glucose oxidation) is a cancerous nation on the verge of degeneration. The way to fix it is to lower over-stimulation and restore quiescence, the way to do that is to simply do less and stop trying so hard, which points in the direction of a smaller government.

On a biological level, Republican small government policies seem to be the way to go forward. Democratic large government policies will have the opposite result of what they intend -- less results for more work/taxes.

An apt analogy. More intervention, more sickness.

 

[Kartoffel]

And it won't be difficult to notice that Lee Ka Shing was a poor orphan in Hong Kong and he became a tycoon. But forget about him. Let's see how much hope these people have in bettering their lives and compare it to say San Francisco and LA and see how much hope the homeless there have.

Ahh, from rags to riches. If one guy made it, surely everyone can - Good, you are beginning to see the similarity between those two cases. Maybe you can identify common factors contributing to the problem as a next step. Also, why don't Western/Northern European countries have those same problems?

 

[Kartoffel]

Did you miss the part where I said school is optional? Don't get loans in the first place, then you won't have to pay them. Problem solved before there was even a problem.

I wasn't even talking to you, so I don't get why you feel attacked. And yeah, schools and universities are for suckers. All those studies showing the long-term economic benefits of a university degree are fake news. And don't get me started on all those poor people with money problems. It's all their own fault because they can't manage their expenditures. Suckers! They could at least get an economically promising husband.

 

[Cirion]

Here I'll help you out man. Here's a definition of an ASSET:

ASSET - Something that puts money in your pocket every month.
Examples of assets: A business that is profitable, netting you money. A rental property that puts money in your pocket from the tenants every month. An investment account that is earning you interest. ETC.

Does a student loan do that? Nope. So it meets the definition of LIABILITY:

LIABILITY - Something that takes money out of your pocket every month.
Examples: Student loans, mortgages, car loans, credit card debt.

Sure, a student loan might help you get a high paying job, but it can take up to 10-20 years to break even, after which point you could have made a LOT more money from investments, rental properties, businesses etc.

I actually only went to grad school because I managed to get full scholarship (due to my merit in undergrad school). And I had already told myself, that I wouldn't even go to grad school if I had to pay money, an undergrad degree is more than enough to get a degree usually, even in most technical fields. And for undergrad, I admit my parents did help me out, but even if I had to pay, it wouldn't have been that bad as I went to local university which was no more than 3-5k a semester. And I didn't even do that until I had gotten 2 years out of the way at a community college which was even cheaper than that.

A house is ALSO not an asset, unless you use it as a rental property, because it doesn't put $ in your pocket, it takes it away on a monthly basis. This is another common mistake that people make. Houses are also a liability.

Houses are only truly useful once you've either paid it off in full, or you decide to rent out some or all of it to tenants. I made sure to buy a house I will have paid off in just 8 more years at which point I can live for free, even without tenants. True you are building up equity, but building up equity is not the same as an asset. And equity is something you can't really easily access anyway, not without selling the house, so it's money that doesn't help you achieve financial freedom.