It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion

page: 7
31
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

So those 534 billionaires have $18 trillion?

How long do you think America would have ANY biliionaires living inside it's borders claiming any US citizenship?




posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Dude, we already have all of those scenarios right here in Alaska. Why do you think the MatSu FD stood around watching the Motherlode Lodge in Hatcher's Pass burn to the ground this spring? Why do you think the road condition on Muni side roads in Mtn View is so bad? What about the MatSu first responder issues around Trapper Creek because they're not part of the Borough tax map?

People survive and do quite well at it...



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Reallyfolks

It's future debt to be accrued. It may not be current debt, but it IS debt that will eventually be added to our total debt.


It's money already promised it's different



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: Vasa Croe

It is about time the elite pay their 40%, no free rides for the 1%!



Funny you should mention that. The 1% accounted for 40% of America's GDP last year and paid 47% of the taxes collected. They're doing their part alongside the 20% that accounted for 50% of the GDP yet were responsible for 87% of the taxes collected. Look in the bottom of the bucket to find the holes. Oh, there they are...



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Actually, that is a good point. A portion of that number won't even MAKE it to debt, because it will be covered by taxes. It actually makes the number not as intimidating when you think of it like that. Every year you can subtract the amount the federal budget for that year goes towards those promises from those liabilities.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Reallyfolks

You can't. We have no way of knowing what the GDP will be over the next 25 years. It would be dishonest to do any calculations with the current GDP because it is guaranteed to be MUCH different over that time span. While I find that figure to be worrisome, I certainly cannot just pretend our economy won't grow in the slightest over the next 25 years to match that number either.


Yeah, but you can't pretend that the economy will grow either.

Do you know why we have such a bad problem with unfunded liabilities? It's because people assume an unrealistic growth rate in perpetuity and there is never any adjustment made for a down year. Basically, they tell public employees that they don't have to contribute to their retirement pensions and those pensions are always growing at some unreal rate like 7% or something, and then ... oops! 2008 happens and a bunch of money is lost, but no one tells the public employees that and they assume their pension will be there and growing the same as always.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
It seems like if you are upset about how much you are paying in taxes, you need to work harder and make more money. The top income quintile can write pretty much everything off.

Paying to much in taxes? You're not making enough money. I have a friend that was able to write off and pay pay only 6% of his income in taxes last year, and 3% the year before. How can people paying tax rates like that support a functioning government?



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Actually, that is a good point. A portion of that number won't even MAKE it to debt, because it will be covered by taxes. It actually makes the number not as intimidating when you think of it like that. Every year you can subtract the amount the federal budget for that year goes towards those promises from those liabilities.


All debt is paid for with taxes, there is no other source of funding.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
So I guess this means all the Sanders supporters are fully in favor of the big banks handling the debt securities sales.

Ironic.




posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

The National Debt and national deficit spending have nothing to do with local services paid for by property taxes.




posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I think the goal posts have been moved. People are screaming about the 1% -- but the "one percent" are people who make $388,000 a year. That's really not an awful lot in the world of wealthy people.

The eyes need to be on the .1% -- those people who own a HUGE chunk of America's capital.

The bottom 80% of America owns only 7% of the financial wealth. Let's also not forget that the super wealthy aren't taxed on their investments in the same way as their "income" is. Capital gains taxes need to be looked at long and hard.

What's crazier is that 25 people alone own 2% of the USA. One man alone (John Malone) owns twice as much land in the USA as the entire state of Delaware.

Can we not see that this is a problem?
edit on 15-9-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

A lot of federal funding and grants help pay for local services. More than you'd think.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Reallyfolks

You can't. We have no way of knowing what the GDP will be over the next 25 years. It would be dishonest to do any calculations with the current GDP because it is guaranteed to be MUCH different over that time span. While I find that figure to be worrisome, I certainly cannot just pretend our economy won't grow in the slightest over the next 25 years to match that number either.


Yeah, but you can't pretend that the economy will grow either.


That's a fair point. Though looking at economic trends over the last so many decades shows that we always grow FAR more than we recess. So I think it is a safe assumption to make that within the next 25 years, our GDP will be much higher than it is now.


Do you know why we have such a bad problem with unfunded liabilities? It's because people assume an unrealistic growth rate in perpetuity and there is never any adjustment made for a down year. Basically, they tell public employees that they don't have to contribute to their retirement pensions and those pensions are always growing at some unreal rate like 7% or something, and then ... oops! 2008 happens and a bunch of money is lost, but no one tells the public employees that and they assume their pension will be there and growing the same as always.


Hey now. I'm not saying this isn't a problem. It certainly IS a problem and needs to be addressed. I'm just saying that waving around the blanket number of $128 trillion is misleading. That's all.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
It seems like if you are upset about how much you are paying in taxes, you need to work harder and make more money. The top income quintile can write pretty much everything off.

Paying to much in taxes? You're not making enough money. I have a friend that was able to write off and pay pay only 6% of his income in taxes last year, and 3% the year before. How can people paying tax rates like that support a functioning government?



Well, then, it would seem that the answer to that is NOT to raise tax rates. If, as you say, they are only going to write it off anyhow, then there is no point to making the number higher except to make the ignorant masses feel good.

What is really needed is a simplification of the tax code, and if you do that, then the rates can also come down.

What are they paying? Only 3% or 6% on a bad year? And yet, they are supposed to be paying upwards of 39%+? So lets' imagine we cut out the loopholes and make it a flat rate. You can set it at 20% and you still way ahead.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Actually, that is a good point. A portion of that number won't even MAKE it to debt, because it will be covered by taxes. It actually makes the number not as intimidating when you think of it like that. Every year you can subtract the amount the federal budget for that year goes towards those promises from those liabilities.


It's money promised with no funding source. For instance we promised social security, current day we have 4 workers to 1 beneficiary. In 2025 we go to a 2 to 1 ratio., it's an unfunded liability . Unless you think with automation, robotics coming online along with more outsourcing following tpp will increase worker tax base.

unfunded liability
The amount, at any given time, by which future payment obligations exceed the present value of funds available to pay them. For example, a pension plan's payment obligations, including all income, death and termination benefits owed, are compared to the plan's present investment experience, and if the total plan obligations exceed the projected plan assets at any point in time, the plan has an unfunded liability.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Then that means my original assertion that it is future debt is true. So, I'm not sure why you corrected me when I said that.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm not advocating just blanketly raising taxes. I support capital gains tax reform, tax code reform. I support closing the loop holes being used by the wealthy that aren't available to everyone.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I think the goal posts have been moved. People are screaming about the 1% -- but the "one percent" are people who make $388,000 a year. That's really not an awful lot in the world of wealthy people.

The eyes need to be on the .1% -- those people who own a HUGE chunk of America's capital.

The bottom 80% of America owns only 7% of the financial wealth. Let's also not forget that the super wealthy aren't taxed on their investments like their income. What's crazier is that 25 people alone own 2% of the USA. One man alone (John Malone) owns twice as much land in the USA as the entire state of Delaware.

Can we not see that this is a problem?


My wife and i make that per year combined, and with a family of 5, I certainly wouldn't consider us in the 1% club. A lot of my friends make more and would say the same.

And I am taxed on all of my investments....whether it be pretaxed or post, if I withdraw money.

I don't own a bank. I have 1 house, 2 cars, 3 kids and a dog. I still get taxed 40%. How's that for rape.... $160K/year....

I'd agree. The .1% are the elite...
edit on 9/15/15 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm not advocating just blanketly raising taxes. I support capital gains tax reform, tax code reform. I support closing the loop holes being used by the wealthy that aren't available to everyone.


Capital gains is not a loophole.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Ain't feelings special?
I don't care about actual real world practicality, "WOT BOUT MAH FEELINGZ."
Bane of the World.

Actually, I'd say that a lack of feelings is the bane of the world.




top topics



 
31
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join