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.

 

If Bernie Sanders is president the amount in additional taxes I would pay equals a new Honda Civic

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Here:



Where do you see yourself having higher taxes in that graphic?


He said he's going to raise the payroll tax.

The thing, not that I dislike Bernie, but he's full of crap about taxes. Anyone claiming to be a socialist of any kind is going to raise taxes and there's no other way about it. He's appealing to the younger college aged crowd because he's claiming that college is going to be free. They think they won't have to pay for college if he's elected. It's like that women thinking that Obama's going to pay her mortgage. The aren't even in the "real world" whereas they have to pay bills, rent, utilities, support a family, etc.. That's what bothers me about people saying "so what, you'll be chipping in for the greater good." They can speak for themselves. I'm tired of getting taxed to death.
edit on 7-4-2016 by mkultra11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's the old: "It sucked being me growing up. So it should suck for you too" argument.

Or the "no one ever bothered to help me (even though I never asked) -- so I shouldn't be expected to offer help to anyone!" argument.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ketsuko

Unless you are earning MORE THAN $250,000 per year, your taxes will not go up.
$250,000 for a family of three is more than enough.


Except that they will go up tremendously, via other-than-income taxes and employers passing the taxes on to the middle class via wage and benefit reductions and/or higher point of service prices.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Yes, the right choices.

"Actual life" while at the exact same refering to abstract people? I hate talking tooting my own horn, but I've worked three jobs at the same time. I was born on a reservation, in arguably third world conditions. I am an orphan. I've been homeless. I basically crawled my way out of poverty, and I spent every moment doing it. I have since been educated, travelled the world and am semi-retired. I did it all on my own, with the help of a few choice mentors along the way, and damn it feels good.

The point is, I made the right choices, even when I was too hungry, too tired, and too cold to do so.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: mkultra11

Um...no, the website you posted and his graphic I shared are in line.

The 25% number covers single people AND people filing jointly. If you look carefully you can see that.

25%: Single
$37,451 to $90,750

Jointly
$74,901 to $151,200

Bernie's 25% is from $37,451 to $151,200 -- so it includes both single people and jointly filling people.




posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

They'll pass on the tax burden to the employees?

Just like they'll "pass on the profit" to the employees? (which never happens)

So I guess supply side economics does work?? ... but only in the direction of screwing the worker.

Got it.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

And how did you score that sweet job list there, the onions and the alternators?

Did you happen to score those jobs because they were available? Then you were lucky weren't you. Admit it or not, you could have just sweat your ass off and died. You might never have gotten anywhere doing those things, even if you had worked like a man possessed.

Did it seem right to you at the time, and if so, why? Because like it or not, that is not the right situation for a person to find themselves in by any stretch of the imagination. I would suggest that the reason it seemed right to you, is because if you had actually accepted the full weight of how wrong that situation was, you would not have gotten through it at all. Luck of the draw there. Nothing must ever come down to luck. Equal sweat, equal reward, no exceptions.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's the old: "It sucked being me growing up. So it should suck for you too" argument.

Or the "no one ever bothered to help me (even though I never asked) -- so I shouldn't be expected to offer help to anyone!" argument.


And you know what -- I thought about it. You shouldn't have to help anyone if you don't want to -- but then you better go and live in a hole in the ground or something because you have been, and are being helped indirectly and directly every single day by America's society, culture and government.

We have jobs because America has a government that created an economy we work in.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

How about neither? How about the old "Oh, hey, look at that I have testicles, a spine, and a little bit of Goddamned pride and that's what it took to better my own life?" How about "What? You think you have a claim to some significant percentage of what I've busted my ass to earn? Here, allow me to give you that percentage in the form of two middle fingers and a boot to the ass?" How about "I made the tough choices in my own life, took responsibility for myself and my own, didn't value "spinnin' rims" or nights out with Bicardi in one hand and my latest baby momma in the other above taking care of MY OWN damned responsibilities and life." How about "I'm not a Goddamned saftey net and, frankly, if somebody falls off the tightrope they decided to walk out on, c'est la vie?"

And who in the blue hell is talking about "offering" help? Let's be adults here, we're talking about mandated redistribution and Meal Ticket support for a political ethos, building an empire of serfs beholden to ensuring the Gravy Train doesn't get elected out of office or they'll suddenly be expected to *gasp* provide for themselves instead of living off the net tax payers' teats.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom


It's the old: "It sucked being me growing up. So it should suck for you too" argument.

Or the "no one ever bothered to help me (even though I never asked) -- so I shouldn't be expected to offer help to anyone!" argument.


A lot of people use these arguments to justify enriching themselves even more.

To take it a step further some folks will use their power to slander a persons name to people that don't even know them so they can keep a leg up on them.

The real crux of the problem is how our tax dollars are spent and what the people at the Fed do to monetary policy. I mentioned in another thread how cost of living hasn't kept up with inflation since Nixon took us off the Gold standard.

The government can tax all of us 90% but if cost of living doesn't keep up with inflation even a 90% tax rate won't be enough to sustain social programs, defense programs, and the like at some point in the future.

And that is where we are currently at. Cost of living/Inflation ratio is out of wack so the government compensates by raising taxes and we get senseless class warfare arguments.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
We have jobs because America has a government that created an economy we work in.


Ladies and gentlemen, may I have your attention, please. The newest revision to history:
JOBS DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO 1776. I REPEAT: THE WORLD HAD NO PROFESSIONS, JOBS, OR COMPENSATED DUTIES PRIOR TO THE FORMATION OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.
Film at 11.

Dude, that's the most asinine statement of government apple-polishing I've ever read. It exposes your hand way too much and makes it fairly clear you'll not budge on your stated position, rendering debate entirely unproductive on this topic.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Then as I said to burdman30ott6, there is one thing you did, that no one should EVER have to rely on, and that no one likes to admit.

You got lucky. That is an inhuman thing to be able to do, to drag yourself out of a hole like that, and I am sure you worked like a dog. But you did not make it because you worked at it. You got out, because out of all the millions of people trying to do what you did, you happened to be one of those whose hard work paid off. That's luck before judgement though, and you know it.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




If you want a lower cost of living, you'll also need a lower standard of living.


No. If you want a lower cost of living, make having accomondation/shelter/housing free for those who are forced to pay rent for their appartments and flats. Why does anybody claim to have the right to make money from renting out houses?




That may involve moving, getting rid of luxuries, and so on. I've seen self-proclaimed poor people with two-televisions, two-cars, air-conditioning etc.


What a load of self-righteous horse-sh!t! Since when is having two tv-sets and two cars and air-conditioning considered as luxuries? What would you call having a private-jet, a yacht, ten cars and three castles somewhere?

And no, I'm no having even one tv-set and no car. I spend the little money I have in increasing my brain-power to fight crappy-concepts on a forum like ATS.




I understand the discontent, but then again I do not see the enemies of economic inequality going out, creating wealth, paying good wages, giving opportunities, or changing anything.


You mean the ones who are homeless, overworked working-class moms and legal immigrants, who work in us-american sweat-shops, owned by their fellow immigrants, who made it that far to be able to exploid others?




I also refuse to treat the poor and workers like inert matter, wholly innocent, who are destined to be passive and acted upon and exploited by others.


Yes, continue to blame the under-privileged for their conditions and feel free to judge them.




The employee/employer relationship is a partnership, involving choices between two-parties, not one.


Dream on! Tell that the walmart-employees and other supermarket-cashers.




With the right choices, the right planning, the time, one can lift himself out of the worst poverty.


Keep on telling the old us-american lie that anybody can make it, if they really want to.

I'm dissapointed regarding your political and social attitude, LesMis. I'm loosing respect for you the more I read what you have to contribute on that kind of topics.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

No one does anything 100% on their own.

Even in those Horatio Alger myths that gave birth to the "American Dream" the hero of the story got help from a wealthy benefactor that somehow sponsored them or helped propel them onward.

You don't just wave your hands and create wealth out of thin air. You have to participate in the general community at large in order to make something, and that community requires ongoing support to be maintained.

You are not an island.

If I dump you in the woods how long until you can craft a cell phone from scratch? How long until you open a mine, refine the materials, build the tools you need to make the parts, put it all together and somehow build the computers needed to code the software...

How long before you were able to build your own generator or supply yourself with running water, or even hot water on-demand?

Look, if you want to live like a caveman without all that just so you can say "Me killed that! That all me! 100%! All me!" ... go right ahead, the Alaska bush is pretty big and there's a lot of real estate out there.

You can Papa Pilgrim it up all you want out there and never be bothered if you keep to yourselves. Lots of people do and we never hear about them.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

The worker votes to screw the businessman if Bernie is elected, so why not a little bit of quid-pro-quo, no?



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

OK, fine -- just get rid of government. The economy would vanish.

There were systems of government prior to 1776 that EVOLVED INTO THE US GOVERNMENT.

Jesus H Christ ...



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

The worker votes to protect themselves by voting for Sanders...



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
What's really *Ironic* and hypocritical is when people follow all the advice they hear about when they are young by going to college, getting into a business or going to work for a big business as a well paid employee or consultant and then they get spit on and criticized up-side-down and sideways for getting ahead.

So we have some politicians (and many people) who have been fighting for "free" college and the same ones are supporting the take-down of success that resulted from the same programs that caused all the success.

Something sounds backwards.

Jealousy and envy knows no bounds.




posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I tried to edit my post and screwed it up. Sorry about that.




Bernie's 25% is from $37,451 to $151,200 -- so it includes both single people and jointly filling people.


For example, the current tax code for Married filing jointly or qualifying widow/widower: $18,451 to $74,900 is 15%.

www.bankrate.com...

So, as you can see he's going to raise taxes 10% of joint filing of those making $37,451 to $74,900. Which is right at the heart of the middle class married couple.

Single filers making $37,451 to $90,750 at 25% will have the same taxes.

It will only lower a measly 3% for single and joint making: $151,200 to $189,300 ( currently at 28% ).

Then add the higher payroll tax (and who knows what else) and your taxes will go up. Your payroll tax will go up as will the employers.

Sorry, not buying his tax plan.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I agree with John Locke (or at least the Libertarian interpretation of John Locke). Government's only valid reason for existence is the defense of individual's rights. THAT'S IT. Nowhere in there does it grant validity to taxation, except for import tariffs.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join