Serious question for Sanders supporters.

originally posted by: Flatfish

If we really want to address the problem without the overkill that yourself and "whatmakesyouright" are talking about, we would adopt a split-level minimum wage.

By that, I mean one where anyone who claims themselves and/or others as dependents on their tax returns should be entitled to the higher $15 rate, while those who live at home as someone else's dependent could fall into a lower category like maybe $10 per hr..

I'd be open to that idea.

What I think myself and whatmakesyouright are talking about is the effect on small business in rural areas. You've got to remember that a lot of times small business is treading water month by month. Where as small business in urban areas may benefit from immediate money flow into the economy because of large populations rural areas may not see such a benefit because of lower populations.

It could have devastating effects on the equilibrium of the economy if you shock the system too much.

Unintended consequences and all.....

a reply to: whatmakesyouright

All I'm saying is that the impact is the same whether you scale it up for Walmart or down for mom & pop and they would all have to adjust their rates to compensate.

The fact that their competition will be making the same or similar adjustments should minimize any perceived disadvantage.

That's not to say that I wouldn't favor a split-level minimum wage like I described in my previous post.

originally posted by: GD21D

originally posted by: Flatfish

If we really want to address the problem without the overkill that yourself and "whatmakesyouright" are talking about, we would adopt a split-level minimum wage.

By that, I mean one where anyone who claims themselves and/or others as dependents on their tax returns should be entitled to the higher $15 rate, while those who live at home as someone else's dependent could fall into a lower category like maybe $10 per hr..

I'd be open to that idea.

What I think myself and whatmakesyouright are talking about is the effect on small business in rural areas. You've got to remember that a lot of times small business is treading water month by month. Where as small business in urban areas may benefit from immediate money flow into the economy because of large populations rural areas may not see such a benefit because of lower populations.

It could have devastating effects on the equilibrium of the economy if you shock the system too much.

Unintended consequences and all.....

I understand your concerns and I think there probably would be some unintended harm caused if it were imposed all at once, but I think that even Bernie's plan is for phased wage increases over a period of years.

Just the same, I would actually favor the split-level system I previously described.

Maybe I should write to Bernie.

So we can all agree that government is corrupt.

And yet, people still desire to increase the size and scope of government.

I'm to assume then, that everyone wants a corrupt government because they will benefit from the corruption. especially with Sanders as president.

I'm at a loss to say anything further. We will get the government we deserve.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So we can all agree that government is corrupt.

And yet, people still desire to increase the size and scope of government.

I'm to assume then, that everyone wants a corrupt government because they will benefit from the corruption. especially with Sanders as president.

I'm at a loss to say anything further. We will get the government we deserve.

No, we don't all agree that "government is corrupt."

On the other hand, I would imagine that we all do agree that there is corruption within our government.

Funny how a simple little re-arrangement of words can totally distort the truth.

I'm not surprised you're at a loss.

a reply to: Flatfish

Rearrange the words all you want. Corruption exists, you wish to increase the size and scope of an entity that has corruption. Sanders = more corruption?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Does the private sector not have corruption? Can't we apply that same logic that we shouldn't increase the scope of that?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Flatfish

Rearrange the words all you want. Corruption exists, you wish to increase the size and scope of an entity that has corruption. Sanders = more corruption?

Show me one instance of corruption related to Bernie Sanders and you might have a leg to stand on.

Otherwise, that's nothing more that hollow accusations. Hannity would be proud.

a reply to: openminded2011

I don't get it. You ask how he'd pay for the programs, then immediately try to throw away possible options.

"Taxing the rich" doesn't just mean "raising income taxes". It also includes financial transaction taxes & raising the maximum amount of income taxable for Social Security (in 2015, you're only taxed for social Security on the first $118,500). "Taxing the rich" also includes closing the loopholes that allow hedge fund managers to pay much lower income taxes than every other profession and taxing the literal trillions of dollars US companies are holding overseas to avoid paying taxes.

Then there's ending the massive taxpayer funded subsidies to oil companies, Wall Street firms, large agriculture firms like Monsanto, Cargill, and others. And there's the obvious option to downsize our massive military industrial complex, using that money to upgrade our infrastructure instead. And let's not forget the oil windfall tax, which existed from 1980 to 1988.

Then there are the ridiculously high costs of imprisoning people. Right now, it's literally cheaper to give a nonviolent offender community service and taxpayer funded tuition at a community college than it is to lock them up for a year. The average cost to lock someone up for a year in America is $31,307 per year. Think about that for a second.

As an example, in most States, stealing something worth over $500 is a felony (larceny). If the crime is committed without a weapon, you may serve 6 months in jail. That means taxpayers are paying an average of $15,500 to imprison someone for stealing $501 or more. And if the thief has a weapon while committing the crime, it can instantly jump to a several year long sentence. It would be smarter & much cheaper to make them pay back what they stole, pay a punitive fine, and do community service. Changes like that would drastically save taxpayers money, which could then be used to improve our infrastructures. (And the costs for nonviolent drug offenders is even higher, especially when mandatory minimum sentences are in place.)

As for raising the income tax level, I don't think people understand just how high America's tax rates used to be. Here's a short list of the top tax rates over the last 70 years.

1945 (94%), 1950 (84.4%), 1963 (91%), 1980 (70%), 1986 (50%), 1991 (31%), 2000 (39.6%), and 2010 (35%).

So even though the tax rates have been drastically reduced, the extra income isn't being shared among the workers. In fact, here's a quote from a report I'll link.

...the top 1 percent of households have secured a very large share of all of the gains in income—59.9 percent of the gains from 1979–2007, while the top 0.1 percent seized an even more disproportionate share: 36 percent. In comparison, only 8.6 percent of income gains have gone to the bottom 90 percent”

The wedges between productivity and median compensation growth

So in order to fund Sanders' programs, it's going to take a fundamental change in the way our tax money is allocated. But that's going to have to include taxing the rich, too. The good thing with socialism is that even though you pay more upfront, your healthcare, food costs, education costs, and nearly every other necessity is taken care of. That's literally the point in having a "social safety net".

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: openminded2011

I don't get it. You ask how he'd pay for the programs, then immediately try to throw away possible options.

"Taxing the rich" doesn't just mean "raising income taxes". It also includes financial transaction taxes & raising the maximum amount of income taxable for Social Security (in 2015, you're only taxed for social Security on the first $118,500). "Taxing the rich" also includes closing the loopholes that allow hedge fund managers to pay much lower income taxes than every other profession and taxing the literal trillions of dollars US companies are holding overseas to avoid paying taxes.

Then there's ending the massive taxpayer funded subsidies to oil companies, Wall Street firms, large agriculture firms like Monsanto, Cargill, and others. And there's the obvious option to downsize our massive military industrial complex, using that money to upgrade our infrastructure instead. And let's not forget the oil windfall tax, which existed from 1980 to 1988.

Then there are the ridiculously high costs of imprisoning people. Right now, it's literally cheaper to give a nonviolent offender community service and taxpayer funded tuition at a community college than it is to lock them up for a year. The average cost to lock someone up for a year in America is $31,307 per year. Think about that for a second.

As an example, in most States, stealing something worth over $500 is a felony (larceny). If the crime is committed without a weapon, you may serve 6 months in jail. That means taxpayers are paying an average of $15,500 to imprison someone for stealing $501 or more. And if the thief has a weapon while committing the crime, it can instantly jump to a several year long sentence. It would be smarter & much cheaper to make them pay back what they stole, pay a punitive fine, and do community service. Changes like that would drastically save taxpayers money, which could then be used to improve our infrastructures. (And the costs for nonviolent drug offenders is even higher, especially when mandatory minimum sentences are in place.)

As for raising the income tax level, I don't think people understand just how high America's tax rates used to be. Here's a short list of the top tax rates over the last 70 years.

1945 (94%), 1950 (84.4%), 1963 (91%), 1980 (70%), 1986 (50%), 1991 (31%), 2000 (39.6%), and 2010 (35%).

So even though the tax rates have been drastically reduced, the extra income isn't being shared among the workers. In fact, here's a quote from a report I'll link.

...the top 1 percent of households have secured a very large share of all of the gains in income—59.9 percent of the gains from 1979–2007, while the top 0.1 percent seized an even more disproportionate share: 36 percent. In comparison, only 8.6 percent of income gains have gone to the bottom 90 percent”

The wedges between productivity and median compensation growth

So in order to fund Sanders' programs, it's going to take a fundamental change in the way our tax money is allocated. But that's going to have to include taxing the rich, too. The good thing with socialism is that even though you pay more upfront, your healthcare, food costs, education costs, and nearly every other necessity is taken care of. That's literally the point in having a "social safety net".

I am not at all saying that taxing the rich is a bad idea, I am just saying that the revenue stream from taxing them is not going to be a fraction of the money needed to fix the country. I am all for ending oil subsidies and corporate welfare. But to just assert that taxing rich people will solve the lions share of our problems is not realistic.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: DBCowboy

Does the private sector not have corruption? Can't we apply that same logic that we shouldn't increase the scope of that?

The private sector doesn't write laws.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Flatfish

Rearrange the words all you want. Corruption exists, you wish to increase the size and scope of an entity that has corruption. Sanders = more corruption?

Show me one instance of corruption related to Bernie Sanders and you might have a leg to stand on.

Otherwise, that's nothing more that hollow accusations. Hannity would be proud.

Everyone agrees that there is corruption in government. There, worded ok?

Sanders wants to increase the size and scope of government. Many here want to increase the size and scope of government. I have never seen a correlation for bigger government meaning more freedom.

So I can only surmise that you all are ok with a larger corrupt government that will remove freedoms.

a reply to: DBCowboy

They absolutely do write laws. Haven't you heard of ALEC?

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Kali74


When Bernie does rallies and interviews etc... he usually gets in a word about needing a better Congress.

And what you both mean by that is a congress without dissent. You folks are scary.

Translation for Bernie: My ideas are so terrible that I need a supermajority of non-critical thinkers who believe money grows on trees to pass my proposed legislation that even current Democrats won't touch with a ten-foot pole.

The only Democrats that won't touch Bernie's ideas with a ten ft. pole are those who are beholden to their corporate donor base economic reality.

Fixed that for you.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: DBCowboy

They absolutely do write laws. Haven't you heard of ALEC?

ALEC are legislators? Amazing!

[hint: no they aren't.]

At best they are a lobbying group.

Obamacare, climate legislation/carbon taxes, gun control bills, GPS mileage fees for electric cars, popular vote, these are all measures written in the same way to pass legislation at the state and federal level.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

They actually write legislation and then hand it off to whatever congress critter they donate to.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Teikiatsu

They actually write legislation and then hand it off to whatever congress critter they donate to.

Obamacare, climate legislation/carbon taxes, gun control bills, GPS mileage fees for electric cars, popular vote, these are all measures written in the same way to pass legislation at the state and federal level.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Obamacare, climate legislation/carbon taxes, gun control bills, GPS mileage fees for electric cars, popular vote, these are all measures written in the same way to pass legislation at the state and federal level.

Obamacare was written by the insurance companies.

Carbon taxes for the most part don't exist since the whole carbon credit scam fell apart.

Gun control bills are written by firearm manufacturers (hint: Gun sales have skyrocketed under anti gun presidents, Obama has been very good for their business)

Mileage fees for electric cars - So you don't think those who use the roads should pay for them? It's the same ideas as gas taxes. I thought you liked having people pay for the services they're using. If you're not consuming gasoline or you're consuming less of it, it makes sense to use some other metric to tax for roadway use doesn't it?

Popular vote - Never going to happen.

a reply to: Isurrender73

We pay more in heathcare so the rest of the world can pay less.

Do you think the same aspirin in France costs $10 a tablet like it does here in the USA? Nope, the French government wouldn't stand for it.

So these US drug companies make up their profit margins here in the USA, and justify their high prices by citing research costs (which do exist) -- but they'd never be able to sell their drugs and medical devices at USA prices to countries with socialized medicine.

Having socialized medicine allows the government to negotiate/bargain with drug companies and the medical industry. The rest of the developed world is already doing this, and we in the USA are a "free for all".

Think about it like this -- in the USA supply and demand doesn't work within the medical industry. People aren't just going to stop taking life-saving medication or going to the doctor. People will sell their homes, cars, and become homeless and on public assistance to stay alive.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Flatfish

Your opinion and mine differ. I think we will end up seeing the end of capitalism and freedom in the US and your ideals will win the day because too many already want to rely on government to take care of them.

Nah we're just tired of the corporations relying on the government to take care of them, while #ting on the average American. Bernie wants to take the stranglehold the corps have on the country and dismantle it. That's the only way the citizens will regain control of the country. What other candidate is fighting for the people? I guess I'll have to wait on that answer until people stop the D vs. R argument...and we wonder why the country is in the toilet.