Democratic debates

[Hog1]

Translation....you don't know as it is obviously not on BS's site?
Just more giveaway promise Bull Shit?

[JoeRedskin]

Read through BS's site at your link. He has two revenue generating points: Tax the wealthy and corporations so that they "pay their fair share" and removal of the $250,000 cap.

All the rest of his points require either vast expenditures by the state (free tuition, health care, childcare and pre-k) or increased expenditures by employers (requirements for sick leave, doubling the minimum wage, mandatory salary increases).

In addition, he would reinstitute protectionism through the revoking the various free trade agreements.

In response:

(1) As to his "tax the wealthy so they pay a fair share:" While the estimates and breakdowns vary depending on where you are getting your stats and how different forms of wealth transfers are accounted for (tax breaks, direct payments, etc.), it is undisputed that the top 1% of earners pay approximately 30 - 35% of federal income tax while earning approximately 15-20% of the income. Further, the top 25% of earners pay a greater percentage of the federal taxes (~85%) than the percentage of income they earn (65%) (To be in the top 25%, your adjusted gross income (that which you pay taxes on after deductions) has to be ~ 95K or more).

Whatever the measure, the numbers show just how dependent the U.S. has become on the earnings of the wealthy. The U.S. is more dependent on the income tax than other countries, with 37 percent of total government revenue coming from the income tax, compared with 24 percent in other countries. Those countries depend more on consumption taxes and other sources of revenue.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/

The bolded part is important to me. As we become dependent on the top earners to pay more, it is important that we recognize that fact. Destruction of the wealth of top earners is destruction of much of our federal income.

Income inequality is a real thing, however, as every study shows that since the late 70's/early 80's the real income of CEO's has risen at a geometrically greater rate than that of workers:

The CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20-to-1 in 1965 and 29.9-to-1 in 1978, grew to 122.6-to-1 in 1995, peaked at 383.4-to-1 in 2000, and was 295.9-to-1 in 2013, far higher than it was in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s.

CEO Pay Continues to Rise as Typical Workers Are Paid Less | Economic Policy Institute

I don't know the appropriate solution to the ensuring corporations fairly distribute their wages and cap CEO pay or tie a set worker income. I have no doubt to enact such legislation would be pretty damn difficult AND likely have some very unintended negative consequences. However, to me, this is the real problem with wealth distribution in the US.

Sanders policies do not touch this issue. The concept "tax the rich" is the welcome rallying cry of those disadvantaged in society. Robin Hood has always had his iconic appeal. However, the wealth of the US has been built by allowing people to be rich - even obscenely so. In doing so, the US has now built a particular and unique economy among western democracies. Bernie's plan does not account for this and seeks to kill the golden goose without creating a real restructuring of the manner in which income is earned.

(2) As to his various government spending programs: Bernie's transfers are simply pie-in-the-sky rehashed socialism in its most traditional form (wealth redistribution through government funded transfers). Such policies promise huge debts as the transferees vote larger and larger checks for programs they want while the wealth holders spend their wealth to shield it from transfer - or simply leave. Additionally, governmental wealth redistribution will always come with strings, increased dependence, and reduced economic and political freedom.

IMHO, and to preserve both our individual and our corporate (as in the entire society's) freedom, the country needs an effective way to restructure earnings in the corporate setting while preserving the ability to differentiate wages in a meaningful way and to permit (and encourage) entrepreneurship. Then, and only then, can we preserve real freedom of choice. Bernie's revenue generation and wealth transfer plan does none of this, and, in the long run, is antithetical to it.

(3) As to the employer mandates, decreeing that employers must pay their employees more either through direct payments (minimum wage, mandated salaries) or through mandated benefits (enhanced leave) means that fewer employees will be working or the same amount may be working but for lower salaries. It's simple math - if employer expenses go up without commensurate raises in income levels, cuts will come or the business will fold. This will increase government expenditures either through expanded income relief payments (welfare, Medicaid, etc.) or increased governmental employment ("We need to find work for these unemployed folks - let's pay them to fix roads"), etc. If the mandates become universal as Bernie desires, start ups will die and the only employers who will be able to afford to do business will be the large corporations and the government.

(4) Finally, by revoking the various free-trade agreements, all those lovely things we buy will suddenly become very very expensive.

corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries

<sigh> Fine, get ready for prices to increases and reduction in your real income as those products manufactured by "corporate America" become three or four times as expensive to produce. (I am sure in Bernie's world, none of these increased production costs will be passed on to us - unfortunately, in my world, my computer and TV's just tripled in price).

Further, price increases on manufactured consumer goods is only one problem with protectionism. While import much more than we export, 13% of our GDP is made up of exports. Count on that shrinking as foreign countries enact similar protectionist measures targeted against us and simply buy their exports from someone else (BTW - shrinking exports = increased unemployment).

Bernie's entire plan is not just tired, blatant pandering to class warfare, it is structurally unsound and self-defeating. Ultimately, his vision for America is a nation of government employees working for an increasingly indebted employer as real economic freedom is reduced further and further.

[Chico23231]

I certainly think Sanders is right about income inequality, but his means are wrong. The middle class is shrinking. But the idea to tax the rich and corporate institutions are short sighted. His plans of infrastructure repair and such is very low value when its comes to income inequality.

Ive stated before, education reform and corporate wealth should be tied together. The cost of an education is ridiculous. These state supported colleges cost is bullshit. We should focus on high education standards to raise people up and at the same time private companies who have a stake in a stronger work force need to be invested more in this cost. I would look at shortening colleges years to more intensive course work within viable industry jobs. Private companies large and small could offer more permanent placement options tied college recruiting. YET NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT EDUCATION IN THIS ELECTION.


An example of a simple problem with one of Bernies plan:
He's already stated in the free paid leave he would raise a .02% payroll tax. That is absurd. I should not pay for folks to sit on their ass to have kids. Paid leave is granted to folks who work hard and have good jobs. Hell, folks where I work with positions in the mail room get paid leave.

Bernie doesn't really know how is gonna pay for any of this...tax hikes will not pass in congress. he should know this.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

Not sure what's so hard to understand about shifting wealth, taxing the super wealthy and creating jobs by focusing on infrastructure. Maybe try reading up some more rather than glossing over? There's plenty of info out there, surely you don't need to be spoon fed.

There is an inherent problem in shifting wealth. It is called human nature. For it to be successful it has to defy human nature at both ends of the wealth points. At the low end there has to be a cut off, let's say $30k(but it could be any number). If a person gets assistance at 29k but less at 31k human nature will have a lot of people stop trying to get to 31k. At the top end a lot of people will shift their wealth so that it is not punitively taken. So ultimately the burden falls on those who are making over the low point and under the high point. Further as more people at the ends follow the natural path the government is forced to raise the low end and lower the high end. This becomes a dangerous spiral and the end result is what we saw in Greece or more pronouncedly in the former Soviet Union.

Sent from my S6 Edge

[That Guy]

first, if you want you can have free health care, go to the ER, get treated, give them an invalid SSN and let the taxpayers pay for it. that's been one of the hidden costs of illegal immigration.

second, you realize that in the 50s the US had a marginal tax rate exceeding 90%, and it was 70% in the 70s. so acting like having a higher maximum tax rate is some weird/alien or anti-american thing is, well... history extends beyond 1980.

now, if you want to actually enact tax hikes, good luck. it's a tough sell, and the republicans have convinced a LOT of people to vote against their own interests as far as tax and services are involved.

you could close the corporate loopholes though. no more dutch sandwiches and whatever other crazy tax evasion schemes we've got going on. david letterman shouldn't be getting farm subsidies. just saying.

[That Guy]

as far as free college - the studies on the original GI bill showed that every $1 spent on getting GIs degrees resulted in adding $7 back into the economy. if done right, free college can actually be a net gain.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by That Guy

as far as free college - the studies on the original GI bill showed that every $1 spent on getting GIs degrees resulted in adding $7 back into the economy. if done right, free college can actually be a net gain.

so why not have the folks who want "free" tie it too military service? I heard this argument from my far right friends.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

so why not have the folks who want "free" tie it too military service? I heard this argument from my far right friends.

They could tie it to a lot of programs, work study, community service, etc.

[JPPT1974]

Bernie Sanders crying foul over coin toss. As that really that is how you decide a primary or caucus? First I heard of that.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JPPT1974

Bernie Sanders crying foul over coin toss. As that really that is how you decide a primary or caucus? First I heard of that.

Pathetic. I don't know why the dems go thru that crap. Just do a paper secret ballot

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by MTK

They could tie it to a lot of programs, work study, community service, etc.

I could totally get behind something like that......

[Hog1]

Antithetical?
YOU are the man. Last time I used that was in a live chat with....Pliny the elder.

[FRPLG]

A major problem with free college is that it inherently devalues education. From an economical standpoint, education is a differentiating factor. Those motivated and able spend their time and resources on college education knowing it provides an advantage. Once it is free much of that advantage disappears. We will shift a major part of the young and able bodied out of the workforce into non-working roles for a period of time that they're are basically required to do because going without would be a major disadvantage. Meanwhile we'll also foster an even greater classification of the work force as surely those with the means would attend the "better" tuition based colleges. We end up in the same place and spent a bunch of money to do it. Free college doesn't solve the problem. It sounds fantastic but it is solves nothing.

[FRPLG]

The reality of economics is that some people will always have more than others. The best an economic system can do is provide freedom within that system so that opportunity can be generated and acted upon. Artificially generating "opportunity" doesn't work. In fact it is impossible. Artifical opportunity is almost exactly the opposite of real opportunity. It shackles a person to a specific system along with everyone else and generates, at best, the same level of "success" as those other people. True success HAS to be offset by failure in some way within the system to make it actual success. It is simply a ledger that has to be balanced.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

so why not have the folks who want "free" tie it too military service? I heard this argument from my far right friends.

well, if you join the military it is free. i can get up to 72k if i go full time (that's mainly cost of school + monthly stipend). plus a lot of colleges do yellow ribbon, where if the school costs more than the GI bill pays, the government and the school will split the difference, so it's free.

there are also a lot of schools that are sort of fraudulent trying to cash in on naive GIs and give them crappy educations.