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.

 

Bernie Sanders and his "radical" revolution

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
First of all I want to say that I am a young college student and that I am not fit enough to discuss the myriad details of politics. I have a very basic understanding of it and I want to start with some main questions about Bernie Sanders and where he stands.

Now, what seems truthful about Bernie is he aims to provide health security and affordable public colleges. You can see this system incorporated in Canada, Germany, Scandinavian countries ect. Why is it that the wealthiest country in the world cannot provide this for it's people? Is it truly all because of big company greed? Ensuring health care and tuition free college to me seems an essential part a persons well being. So what is wrong with increasing taxes for wall street and all the other big companies out there to ensure this project? I'll just start here with the points I've made so far and am especially interested to see what the anti-Sanders people have to say.

(Also remind if if there is a better category I should've posted this topic in)
edit on 4-3-2016 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   
The problem is that only half of the country pays taxes. I don't want to pay into a system where I work 50 hours a week to pay for the other 50 percents lifestyle choices.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

Okay, so which half of the country pays taxes, and which doesn't and why. I'll need to learn these things from scratch since I honestly don't know much about these details.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

Right now just a shade under 50% don't pay any federal income taxes. They don't report a income that is taxable so the irs doesn't make them file. The taxes paid by classes are as follows

Top 5% of earners paid 59% of total income tax
Top 10% of earners paid 70%
Top 25% paid 86%
Top 50% paid 98%

How will all of the entitlements get paid for if only the rich are paying for them?



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
why should I have to pay more taxes so people that put nothing back into the system can enjoy a better lifestyle than I do?
edit on 4-3-2016 by avgguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

Okay so let me get this straight. The slightly under 50% DO pay taxes but it doesn't get reported and thus counts as no tax whatsoever. Where does that money go?

What Bernie seems to be saying is that by increasing taxation to the rich and ending corrupt illegal greed from them, can the money be allocated to providing health/education for the other 99%. If the big 1% will pay more then it could be enough for it to provide for the 99%. (Statistics show that the 1% is wealthier then the other 99). I can't connect the dots to what you've said, but how is increasing taxation for the wealthiest a bad choice? The rich do appear to have enough to pay for the taxes. And plus, Bernie never said anything about ending taxes to the poor, but then again I'm just giving opinions on what I understand so far.

PS. I just saw your second reply, I'll answer that now.
edit on 4-3-2016 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144




Why is it that the wealthiest country in the world cannot provide this for it's people?


Because the people do not provide for the country.


Still, that analysis confirms that, after all federal taxes are factored in, the U.S. tax system as a whole is progressive. The top 0.1% of families pay the equivalent of 37.9% and the bottom 20% have negative tax rates (that is, they get more money back from the government in the form of refundable tax credits than they pay in taxes).


Pew Research



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

I just showed you that the top 5% of Americans are paying 60% of the taxes. How much more do you think they should pay?



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: avgguy




why should I have to pay more taxes so people that put nothing back into the system can enjoy a better lifestyle than I do?

Well, the issue doesn't seem to be blatantly about "rich" and "poor" people, but about the 1% as VS the other 99. So the upper class VS middle class and lower class.

If you are in the middle class, I don't recall him saying anything about raising taxation to you. Only raising taxation to the big companies. In other words the 1% who comprise most of the wealth. That money will be provided for health/education care for the middle class and lower.
edit on 4-3-2016 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Andy1144

I just showed you that the top 5% of Americans are paying 60% of the taxes. How much more do you think they should pay?

Does "Americans" exclude the big companies? If so, that's where my point is. Not increasing taxation to individuals but companies.
But yes, if the top 5% wealthiest people pay 60% of taxes for the whole country, that is pretty big, but again the issue seems to be with the big companies not individual payers per say.
edit on 4-3-2016 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

"Middle-income households, meanwhile, would pay $4,700 more on average, or about 8.5% of their after-tax income."

Plus a 2.2% healthcare surcharge. So id pay 10.7% more taxes. Not including capital gains( investments)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
The problem is that only half of the country pays taxes. I don't want to pay into a system where I work 50 hours a week to pay for the other 50 percents lifestyle choices.


I pay for yours.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Andy1144

"Middle-income households, meanwhile, would pay $4,700 more on average, or about 8.5% of their after-tax income."

Plus a 2.2% healthcare surcharge. So id pay 10.7% more taxes. Not including capital gains( investments)

For what? Do you assume you will get charged with higher taxes to ensure health care and tuition free college for those who need it? It doesn't say anything about that. He says strictly that he will charge the big companies, not individual tax payers.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

I pay for mine.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

Ill link you to cnn. You have no idea what you're talking about and honestly it'll be easier for you to understand when you're out in the real world.

money.cnn.com...
edit on 4-3-2016 by avgguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144


I can guarantee you this, if any other white man other than Bernie Sanders started shouting "It is time for a Political Revolution" they would be shot dead on a snow covered road jumping out of car surrounded by "special operators"!!!

That's why I can't trust him, he hasn't been shot yet!
edit on 4-3-2016 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Hello Andy,

Education and certification in America are just a way to "charge" for an initiation to your job. It is my understanding in Britain at high school you are tested to see if you go to a vocational path called college or a university which is our colleges or higher equal. There isn't enough trade people with critical shortages coming up and yet they still toss off to the college/university deal here in America.

By forcing this cattleshute to ever more useless degrees, they can snare you in debt even further.

It is also my understanding that in Britain if you decide to screw off and do nothing ot flunk out of college or the university route, they make it even harder for you to qualify to get into it again.

Little if anything is created in America anymore, instead electronic tollbooths are placed to charge a fee in the financial world, nothing is truly exchanged.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

After doing some research it seems undeniable that Bernie plan will increase taxation on the middle class as well drastically. Now while this seems to be true, there are benefits which are given to cover for the increase in taxes. Increasing the minimum wage and providing the health care and education people can afford are some general factors.

You say, why do I have to pay more for someone elses poorer lifestyle? It's not that simple.
I wouldn't jump to quick conclusions just because the taxes increase for the middle and upper classes. There seem to be much more variables involved then "If I have more money then someone poorer, I automatically get charged with higher taxes" This alone seems to deny why the plan is too actually increase taxes on the middle class in the first place. Either way, I don't think it's that simple.

"If you are paying, now, $10,000 a year to a private health insurance company, and I say to you, hypothetically, ‘You’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes — or actually less than that — but you’re not going to pay any more private health insurance', are you going to be complaining about the fact that I’ve saved you $5,000 in your total bills?" -Sanders

So the higher taxes do provide more insurance. I think the details of whether the insurance benefits you in the long run requires some more research though.
edit on 4-3-2016 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: hibbity

Hi,

I'm not sure. The main idea my post suggests is why making public college tuition free is a bad or good idea by taxing the middle class and especially the big 1% higher. Although being an average middle classed American hearing "The middle class will be taxed higher so it can provide for the poorer) can sound like your literally paying more just for the poor without any sort of personal benefit.. That doesn't seem to be the case at all and to me seems like a bad simplification to the topic at hand.

So your not literally going to have less money to cover up for someone poorer, although "higher taxation" does sound like that.
edit on 4-3-2016 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

First where do you propose these college grads will ply their trades? The problem in America is not a lack of access to higher education. It would actually be that there are too many overqualified applicants for too few jobs. So I have to ask whether there is even a need to burden the taxpayers with this initiative.

Second every time the govt increases how much they will cover in grants and such for school the schools raise tuition. So now he wants to put in price controls and other interventionist policies which will further degrade the quality of education. How is it beneficial to provide substandard education to people?

Same thing about healthcare. If people had decent paying jobs they could choose to spend it however they like instead of looking to the government and taxpayers to subsidize their needs.

It sounds to me like you need a candidate with a strong economic platform to achieve the ends you desire. Not someone who embraces a system of repeated failure at every implementation. The nordic models you point to do not have the same divided cultures and are much smaller. Also they are part of a union which has helped to subsidize other aspects of their country like security of which we are a major part of (NATO, Security Council, etc). They opened the gates to the immigrants because they are at or near negative birth/replacement rates and need a constant influx of taxable migrants to prop up the ponzi scheme.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join