Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says

originally posted by: TheBandit795
Just posting this pic right here. It doesn't take government spending in consideration. Just the tax laws. I got it from the Unbiased America page on Facebook.

NOTE: Methodology can be found here -taxfoundation.org...


SOURCES:
A Comparison of Presidential Tax Plans and Their Economic Effects

The following are all pdf files.

Sanders's Plan:
Clinton's Plan:
Carson's Plan:
Cruz's Plan:
Trump's Plan
Bush's Plan
Rubio's Plan:

I never even knew Carson HAD a tax plan. I'll read this later thanks.

The single greatest policy right now that takes little cost vs. Benefit, is a tight immigration policy, tighter work visa qualifications and deportations.

There are numerous savings and financial side benefits that would in theory happen as a result, with laws that are ALREADY Constitutional.

I'd go into it further but I just needed to state that. Hardly any talk about it and it really makes me scratch my head.

Also, the positive spin on "GDP" is a ruse/misnomer.

It, like stock market volume, is not necessary a default indicator of QUALITY.

They're pieces of the puzzle but that doesn't make them sound fundamentals.

Give me personal savings, job quality, home ownerships at normal rates, lower taxes, lower national debt, consumer confidence, less governmentall jobs, more manufacturing, higher Baltic Index...and keep everything else.

a reply to: elitegamer23

Thanks for posting that! I'm voting for Bernie, assuming they nominate him, and I'm republican.

Our system is so distorted now, and Bernie is the only one attempting to turn it around. Hillary = status quo, and so do the several republicans.

If Bernie's proposals can do what this author says they will do, I'm all for it.

a reply to: Salander

If you're are voting for Sanders then you are not a republican, you're not a Democrat either, atleast nit what a Democrat used to be. You apparently read the OP's post and article but ignored everything after that. If you want to give up another 30% of your income to the government so they can get even bigger, even more corrupt and have even more control over your life because you think they will provide you with things you don't have now, you have issues.

Nothing is free. You will pay for it by not getting to keep the money you earn, if you work. You will get to keep 40 cents of every dollar you earn and your taxes will directly fund a government that will get larger and control even more of your life because everything you have will come from them. Your taxes will also directly fund someone who decides not to work and contribute. So, if all you Sanders supporters think this is a good thing,great! If he wins, I will quit my job so all of the income that is being taken from you can go to support me and give me the same things you have. Because, that's only fair right? How does that sound to you? You want to see how things will be, just look at Spain and then imagine a govt the size of ours with 10x's the power and control I has now.

a reply to: TheBandit795

I am curious why you are fixated on the GDP growth only?

From an internal perspective (from the citizen's POV) it is a rather useless number.

A far more pertinent number, for people inside the country, is the static and dynamic revenues.

I don't pay much attention to the political process. The other day I happened to see a bit on cnn showing sanders at a podium behind which people were holding up signs saying 'more change we can believe in…'

…really? People just go blank during election time, believe the same mantras over and again, no matter how many times they present them.

Try tuning out for a while then glimpsing the media presentations of campaigns, spot checking the candidates speak, its laughable. Bet you can't, once enmeshed you can't turn away for fear of missing something, important.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Over a decade ago, I lived on a very nice street in a very nice house with very nice neighbors. Some struggling and some like me doing well. At the end of the street was a near mansion. The family was nice but obviously wealthy. Probably about ten times richer than any of the rest of us.

Here is my take on Sanders and most liberals. According to them it would be not only fair, but completely right for the rest of the neighbors and myself to go and take the cars, furniture, art, food, etc. from those living in that mansion and keep it for ourselves. Legalized theft. And then we would be permitted to continue this act monthly...stealing from them because we aren't equal.

Now...if you think that is the way we should treat each other, or if you think there isn't a crime in there somewhere, then America is already doomed.

Absurd hyperbole.

Navajo call you "Needs to Learn"

a reply to: Justoneman

Exactly and it's extremely competitive for full time positions because it seems fewer are avaliable. These are things the MSN doesn't really focus on because it's all about making sure the President looks good!

Exactly. That kind of paper prosperity doesn't produce anything of real value, which is why we see socialist economies collapse when the bubble bursts. Talking to a British friend last night, he extolled the benefits while complaining about $14 a gallon gasoline (75% taxes), the fact that there's no industrial production, the fact that they're a heavy food importer, the high food prices in general. You can have all the socialism you're willing to pay for, no more. Beyond a certain point, business and money flee the country. Are people even aware that Deutchbank effectively OWNS Greece now?
a reply to: ketsuko

originally posted by: Parthin96
Are people even aware that Deutchbank effectively OWNS Greece now?

Since Sanders proposal would put the US much closer to Germany than to Greece...isn't that a good thing?
2nd.

a reply to: elitegamer23

1. Economic growth is based on destroying jobs, not creating them. Notice how you are not a farmer toiling in the fields? We can throw away all our technology and all have guaranteed jobs in agriculture. Or we can break all our windows and then have the job of fixing them. That does not work.

2. There is a well-proven method to raise people's income and quality of living. Its called capitalism. There are two places with low government spending. Those would be Hong Kong and Singapore. Poor people stream to those countries for opportunity, the way when the US was capitalist, poor people would stream to the US as the land of opportunity. To my knowledge, poor people do not frequently die of starvation-related diseases in either place. Yet these places are very prosperous and growing rapidly almost every year for the last 20 years.

Incomes going up does not mean quality of living will go up. Venezuelan's incomes are skyrocketing right now to the moon. However, their quality of life is going down. Incomes are incredibly high in Washington DC compared to almost every other place, and that is a sign of rampant corruption in a collapsing nation, not a sign of prosperity.

3. Spending other people's money without their individual consent on social programs is morally wrong. I can go around stealing stuff. It would give me a job and more money, and guaranteed healthcare. But it wouldn't make it right. Likewise, I've never signed a contract to support Obamacare or Berniecare.

4. Guaranteeing every single one of your basic needs will be met will result in massive immigration problems and rampant laziness. Look at places where all these things are guaranteed and you can see rampant immgration to get life handed to them on a silver platter. They aren't going there to find a job, they are going there to have their life handed to them on a silver platter.

originally posted by: jpatrick
Did we not have similar growth under Bill Clinton? I am voting for Sanders and hope we do have this prosperity.

You're close. We had a massive tech bubble created under Clinton, that popped hard under Bush. Bubbles are unhealthy growth. I mean are you going to say the Nasdaq would have not collapsed to 2,000 if Clinton had a third term? It was unhealthy growth and it needed to collapse.

The trend of unhealthy growth bubbles continue.

The only healthy economic growth that has occurred since America's conversion of fascism under Lincoln has been due to technology progress, not any politician. Politicians have only worked to siphon off what gains we would have otherwise enjoyed.

a reply to: elitegamer23

I remember some other candidate had a similar program - who was it now? Oh yeah, "Lyndon LaRouche".

Basically, he'd up the ante on what Obama started - massive government spending - primarily in the areas of new / increased entitlements, floated on the back of more deficit spending. Just print a few trillion (more) dollars and all that new money will jump-start the economy and yada yada yada - Weimar Republic ring any bells? How about Venezuela?

We're spending almost a quarter of revenues on debt service as it is - we need to reduce the debt, and reduce the debt service load.

I'm just looking at the summary, but I can already see it's a bunch of bs. Just, for example, look at the $3T "saved" by eliminating tax deductions for healthcare premiums.

What that says to me is that every middle-class person will lose their company-paid health insurance, and have to pay for it themselves.

This might "save" the government money - but would further squeeze the middle-class - which somehow is *always* the effect - the very poor (at least those that know how to work the system) benefit, the very wealthy don't care, and those in the middle get crushed. Just like Obamacare and Medicaid and CHIP and HCV and .....

The one thing we do need to consider is consolidation of programs. We have 50+ separate programs to administer nearly every federally-mandated benefit/spending program, one for each state/territory, plus the federal end. This massive duplication of bureaucracies is massively wasteful.

If we could eliminate the waste, fraud, abuse and duplication of Medicaid and Medicare alone, we could probably pay for a modest national healthcare system without spending a dime more - our spend on these programs is rising towards $1T - but anywhere from 25 to 50% of that is "spoilage" - every government entitlement program spurts cash like a cut artery - because the government is always incentivized to spend *more*.

Eliminate the waste - you'd be surprised how far our money can go.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

If they're not paying fair wages to employees or taking advantage of tax loop holes or not paying fair taxes then they are gaining it unfairly. Flat taxes are not fair, the concept even, is absurd.

But try to explain to me how a percentage isn't fair? A percentage by definition is the only thing that is fair. For example...if you and I get a speeding ticket and you make 100K and I make 10K it should be a percentage of that income to be fair.

Fines are not fair at all because the government is supposed to be non-profit. Any revenues collected from fines should, within 24 hours of receipt, be relayed to the victims of the crimes. And, if there is not victim, like "speeding", then there is no crime. Also, all fines if we must have them as punishments, should be replaceable by working them off in jail at a living wage rate.

a reply to: spinalremain

Just because you vote for the government to do the dirty work for you doesn't change the aptness of the analogy.



Sanders just wants to put this video on steroids.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: neo96

And Democrats (mostly) *OWN* that legislation from 1999 that crippled the Glass-Steagall sections that get the blame for recent financial collapses.

Seems More Democrats voted in favor of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Senate Yes votes:
1 Democrat
53 Republican

House Yes votes:
182 Democrat
58 Republican
1 Independent (guess who the Independent was that voted Yes) (HINT: his name is in the title of this thread !!!!)

President Yes:
1 Democrat

Total Democrats in favor = 184
Total Republicans in favor = 111

Hmmm.


Senate

House


? Has Bernie ever been axed to give an explanation for voting in favor of the Bill that repealed the Glass-Steagall restrictions ?

Bernie Sanders is most well-known for gutting Ron Paul's audit the fed bill, which was the centerpiece of his career in office. What Sanders did while getting millions from the big banks to gut the bill was a disgrace. Back then while Ron Paul was trying to get his big bank bill through the Senate, I guess Sanders had less a problem taking money from the big banks.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Parthin96
Are people even aware that Deutchbank effectively OWNS Greece now?

Since Sanders proposal would put the US much closer to Germany than to Greece...isn't that a good thing?
2nd.

Not really. We spend more per-capita on entitlements than Germany does - this would just up the ante.

Germany has a fairly homogeneous society, with far lower crime rates, a lower debt-to-gdp ratio, lower incarceration rate, a higher effective labor participation rate, etc.

Here's the big difference between our systems - the US spends more on entitlements than anyone else - which means, we're giving people money, for housing, health insurance, food, cable tv, cell phones, transportation, day care. Really, all you have to do these days is have an out-of-wedlock child, refuse to name the father, and you never have to work a day in your life. And if you *do* work a day in your life, (that is, officially, and not in the gray and black markets), you *lose* benefits. Or, get your children registered as "disabled" - learning or otherwise - and again, you'll never have to work another day in your life. That's a fairly common scam these days.

What we call socialist countries spend more of their money on "shared" resources than the US. So, they don't pay people (as much) to *not* work, not to be productive to the extent we do. There's a shocking number of people in the US that will never really have a regular job in their entire lives, and it's mostly because the government pays them not to work.

originally posted by: mclarenmp4
a reply to: neo96

Yes and do you know why they have corporation tax that high which stifles small businesses?
Because your major companies pay little to no corporation tax because of offshoring their corporations.

You tax the business through payroll not corporation tax.
We have the same issue in our country holding certain businesses accountable for their corporation tax bill and they are looking at ways to address this loophole. Taxing through payroll while keeping corporation tax low helps smaller business who don't seek to avoid paying their share of tax and holds the larger business accountable to tax.

All business expenses are 100% paid for by end consumers, including taxes. The profit of corporations has always averaged 7% over decades of time regardless of any amount they pay in taxes, be it 5% or 35%. Taxes, like 100% of all business expenses, are passed onto the consumer.

Its complicated why that is the case, but the key reason is that businesses risk goes up when their taxes go up. So, they naturally go to opportunities that offer a lower tax cost for higher returns on investment. Prices then increase over time on the enterprises that cannot avoid the tax. Risk increases, therefore return also must increase to offer a balanced opportunity for investors to accept.

At one point I had a chart showing the profitability over time of companies in addition to the tax rate over time of corporations. There was virtually ZERO correlation. Why? You can't tax businesses, you can only tax the buyers of the products because they are the ones paying all business expenses at the end of the day. I'll have to drag up those charts at some point. Evidence is everything, but it seems no Democrat voter would ever pay attention to the facts, which do not support their positions at all.

The current Nordic Model, which Sanders and his supporters claim are examples of Democratic Socialism, is actually Social Democracy, which operate under the framework of capitalism. There is a difference. There is no evidence that Democratic Socialism will work, as there are no examples of Democratic Socialist countries to look at in order to weigh the pros and cons.