Slashdot Mirror
Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic
Presto Vivace writes: The H-1B visa issue rarely surfaces during presidential races, and that's what makes the entrance by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) into the 2016 presidential race so interesting. ... ...Sanders is very skeptical of the H-1B program, and has lambasted tech firms for hiring visa workers at the same time they're cutting staff. He's especially critical of the visa's use in offshore outsourcing.
Does Sanders have any chance to become president? Bush and Clinton... been there, done that, both long term disasters.
If you'd like to focus on Bernie Sanders' view on H-1B Visas, that's fine. But let's not forget that his remarks and avowed beliefs of Socialism are what really make him an interesting candidate for the Democratic Party, contrasted with the free-market, capitalist beliefs of his opponents.
Can confirm: anyone stupid enough to expose their bigotry like that is unemployable in the Silicon Valley.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I live there and I'm simply tired of the smell. Work? Lol
Hilary would be the first woman POTUS, and Bill would be the first First Man. She's a credible candidate, if she draws sufficient primary wins 'because she's a woman, and it's time', well, so be it. You just can't help wondering if Bernie really could be an agent of change, if enough money is drawn to his campaign to thwart the 'let's elect a female' and support the 'we already did the Clinton thing' messages. Mr. Sanders has been on the front lines against the 'machine' and there's a chance some Tea Party voters could even rise to rebel against the same ol' same ol' Republican they'll put up. '
Please have respect for people with different abilities, especially children.
The stench of curry or BO?
Some of them combine the stench for double the work pleasure.
You have be a masochist or a sucker to live in Silicon Valley.
Just a personal opinion, so take it for whatever you think it's worth. But IMO, Sanders is more of a campaign disruptor than a serious contender for the next presidential election.
He's known as a political "Independent" but as others have already noted, he's more of a Socialist really. I see some value in him wanting to bring up the H1-B VISA issue, but primarily so it encourages the other candidates to debate it.
I also hear quite a few comments from those supposedly disillusioned with "free market capitalism", so some of these people will surely find Sanders an interesting alternative. I find that quite unfortunate though. Personally, I'm still pretty firmly convinced that free market concepts really never got a fair shake in the U.S. in the first place. So often, we're sold that label while reality is quite different. Heck, I was just debating the whole issue with a friend of mine last week about the deregulation of the power companies and the disaster that created for California. He used it as a prime example of why free markets aren't really viable or desirable. I countered that actually, that was FAR more an example of fraud than anything else -- a problem that transcends politics or the type of marketplace you're working with. In fact, much of the scamming going on with all of that was only made possible because GOVERNMENT was still expected to make payments towards keeping the infrastructure working! (They had legislation in place where government would start paying out money whenever the utilization of the power lines went above a certain percentage of their maximum capabilities. Therefore, crooked businesses like Enron would create false entries, reserving utilization that was never really happening to fake capacity limits being hit and profit from the govt. funding that was theoretically going to upgrading that infrastructure.)
Time and time again, this is what I really see happening.... People get frustrated or disgusted at something that supposedly happens because of a lack of governmental controls. But a closer look makes you realize it was only due to government interference or control in the FIRST place that the scenario was set up. The net neutrality debates would probably be another example of this. Sure, we need government to step in and tell Comcast, "No! You can't merge with Time Warner!" now. BUT that scenario was QUITE unlikely to have ever happened in the first place if broadband internet service was handled in the private sector in the first place, minus govt. regulated monopolies getting preferential treatment when the services were first getting built out.
You might be surprised...
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I'm no party animal but if he runs even as a Democrat, I might vote for him. He's an old man and I think old men are more likely to speak the truth and less likely to make moral compromises. At 73 he'll be thinking of an afterlife if he believes in one. Even if he doesn't he won't care about future prospects enough to sell out for them.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
but then goes for batshit insane politics that would push us back to the worst part of the soviet experiment.
Examples?
I looked him up to see what was so crazy, and all I found was:
None of that seems all that crazy or dangerous to me
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Such as? He strikes me as a moderate on the world political spectrum: free education, universal healthcare, strong privacy protections, support for unions, regulating financial markets and banks: all things that are considered 'normal' in the developed world. I haven't heard him ask for gulags or socializing private enterprise, although personally I would be in favor of socializing the infrastructure utilities use and allowing private enterprise to all have equal opportunity at providing services over said infrastructure (phone lines, power lines, cable lines, water lines). Should drastically reduce monopolies, increase competition, and improve the end users experience.
He makes a lot of very rational statement, but then goes for batshit insane politics that would push us back to the worst part of the soviet experiment.
So he's for establishing a gulag, is he? Citations please.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Unfortunately he is a candidate in name only. He can't raise the kind of money that Hillary or any other candidate running for the democratic nomination can raise, and hence has no chance of getting the nomination. He would be better off running as a third party candidate than trying to get the democratic nomination; it will be interesting to see him eventually reveal his plan for what to do when he has fallen too far behind in the party race.
The funny thing is, he is the liberal democrat that the conservative majority in this country always try to paint every other democrat to be. I would love to see what they would do if he actually gained power beyond his seat in the Senate.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I'm a pro-H1B redneck enjoying watching you nerdlings getting you jobs taken and wages debased after decades of being called racist by your lot for daring to questioning uncontrolled immigration along our southern border.
Hows that shit sandwich taste now?
supporting the concepts, and understanding the economics on how to give everyone everything for free are 2 different things. I support them all as well in theory, in practice* not so much
by in practice, i simply mean the methods that he himself want to try
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
He's doubly stupid. Not only is he stupid enough to expose his bigotry, he can't even get the correct ethnic group. The majority of H1-Bs are most likely from India. India is not known for deserts (quite the opposite in fact, it has jungles and is famous for tigers). The slur he used is a reference to middle easterners, but those aren't a majority of imported tech workers by a long shot.
To the religious conservatives and libertarians who make up the bulk of this site's demographics, those things are all "crazy" and "dangerous" and "soviet-like". Especially the LGBT equality thing; Slashdotters really hate that.
Obama has cut the budget deficit in half since 2008. (Bush left it at $1.5 trillion per year, and now it's about $750 billion). Since $750 billion is still greater than zero, the national debt continues to rise, at about half the rate that it did during the Bush administration- when, if you recall, no one seemed to be complaining about it at all.
You get what you pay for..
India is not known for deserts (quite the opposite in fact, it has jungles and is famous for tigers).
India is a big place. It includes both jungles and deserts, including the Thar Desert in Rajasthan, along the border with Pakistan.
the current zeigeist is unlike any in my lifetime. Voters are deeply troubled by our current system, which stacks the deck against ordinary people. I think they are ready for someone like Sanders.
a balanced budget would not be a good idea.
What, how many masochists and suckers there are. No, you can't suprise anyone with that.
He strikes me as a moderate on the world political spectrum: free education, universal healthcare, strong privacy protections, support for unions, regulating financial markets and banks: all things that are considered 'normal' in the developed world.
Yes, he would be considered a moderate in France, or Italy. Unfortunately, he is running for president of America, where his chance of winning is infinitesimal. But he could have a big impact: by steering the Democratic primaries sharply to the left, he may compel Hillary to take positions that will make it harder for her to win the general election. We may end up with Jeb in the White House.
the original "No True Scottsman". There really is no way for it to exist. Sooner or later inheritance alone means somebody is going to get advantages, use them, and start locking down wealth. As soon as you introduce anti trust law you've busted the system.
Private power companies don't work because they don't add value. Power is something _everyone_ wants. When everyone wants something it makes sense for it to be run as a public utility. Adding a private element just lets someone skim 10-20% off the top is all while they cut down on safety. Anyone who thinks private companies are inherently more efficient needs to go watch Office Space again and then go check out the (rather amazing) American Postal System or look at a well funded DMV (as opposed to a DMV run for the purposes of triggering knee jerk reactions from anti-gov't types).
Sure, you have to keep an eye on what the gov't does, but we've already established we have to do the same with business (see the aforementioned anti-trust laws). That's the trouble with socialism. Free Market Capitalism claims to have principles and easy answers. That they're the wrong answers isn't really the issue. Socialists basically say: Hey, the world is _fsckin'_ complex and it takes real hard work to make things run smoothly, and then a Socialist will start blathering on about all the things you need to do to make a system work.
The way I see Free Market Capitalism is this: When have you ever had a difficult problem that got better by leaving it the fsck alone?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Paying for them is a simple matter of raising taxes on wealthy people.
You think we can't afford to pay for health care? We're paying for it now through a combination of taxes and premiums, just in a less efficient system than what Sanders wants.
What other thing is it you think we can't afford that Sanders wants?
Yes but you're missing the part where Americans want to live in a third world country because running a first world country requires taxes.
The Thar desert has a miniscule population, even a minority of Rajasthan people live there. Most of the Indians are from metro cities like Bangalore, Madras, Hyderabad, Pune, Bombay, Calcutta - places that are nowhere near any desert. The Thar desert may be a major area within the state of Rajasthan, but it's a blip in India's landsacape
Yeah those damn legless lizards, geckos, beaded lizards and tegus need to stay out of the house.
Speaking as a libertarian, for me it's the support for universal healthcare that's the runaway winner for economic, although the LGBT equality is a problem here.
Also, I've yet to meet the libertarian that supported the bank bailouts. Libertarians were among the most critical of this and have always opposed related schemes such as national deposit insurance.
Private power companies don't work because they don't add value.
That is kind of a ridiculous statement. If nothing else they can add value simply by producing power cheaper than other companies, or provide power where public utilities will not.
There are private power companies in the U.S. you know... if they "do not work" how do they exist?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No, he would be considered pretty right wing in France, the UK, Italy, Germany, in fact... pretty much all of Europe.
the problem is, Bernie's "truth" is poison to a free country.
No, "truth" is the poison in an unfree country, which is why he will be so vehemently opposed.
The bipartisan bailout of wall st was socalist. In fact it was worse: socialized losses and private gains. But go on and call bernie the socialist like the media wants you to.
Problem is, your definition of "free" is flawed.
How about this: raise taxes on the rich and the middle class and help the poor in the rest of the world?
It would make sense charging someone earning 30k a year, say, 20%, to help a bunch of peopleearning, say, 2000/year, no? Make the world a better place and all that?
That refusal to pay you're feeling is what the rich feel when you demand they be taxed more to pay for your shit.
Aw, where would we be without your partisan oddness?
It is really charming how you manage to shill for fox news on slashdot
No troll tag on this?
This is happening under the Obama admin. His people don't give 2 shits about H1B abuses (hi So. Cal. ConEd!) Sanders' actual party affiliation is Socialist. Obama is a Socialist who calls himself a Democrat so I hope you've learned your lesson here.
But (I predict) probably not.
Well to be fair the man calls himself a socialist; he's just wrong about that. You're spot on about the bailout though. It's like my Bolshie Uncle Ivan used to say. "Kid," he'd say, "nobody really believes in socialism. Nobody believes in capitalism either. It's 'socialism for me, capitalism for you!'"
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
His politics aren't much different from the way things are in the good parts of Europe, mainly Scandinavia, which has a significantly higher quality of life when compared to the US, along with higher social mobility, less unemployment, and less poverty.
If Scandinavia can make these social policies work, why couldn't the supposedly "Greatest Nation on Earth"?
Paying for them is a simple matter of raising taxes on wealthy people.
By which you mean, confiscating some portion of the wealth of those wealthier than yourself. The problem with that plan is that if you do not confiscate it all at once, those with the bulk of it will move it beyond the government's reach when it becomes obvious that that is the plan. And if you do confiscate it all at once, there is not enough of it to cover the cost of what your are proposing. Oh yeah, one other problem, the vast majority of wealth can only be used to pay for stuff if there is someone willing and able to pay for that wealth (that is, most wealth is some form of property).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
'ER' Dude you are electing a representative president that is meant to implement and administer the laws provide by the senate and the congress, not fucking god. What the fuck are you talking about except typical PR=B$ hyperbole ad hominem attacks. Yeah sure, a bunch of very corrupt rich exploiting the poor laws need to change in order to rebuild the core, the middle class, but all the president can do is implement the policies provided and either do that well or do it incompetently or do it some what competently but extremely poorly because actions where based upon very unsound and corrupted information designed not to provide solutions but feed insatiable vested interests (corrupt advisers produce corrupted outcomes).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Because normal people receive hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes through their husband while they're Secretary of State. Fuck you.
No, he calls himself a democratic socialist. That isn't socialist. It's more-or-less the mainstream "left" party in most countries in Western Europe. And he'd fit well in those parties.
there's a certain kind of american who thinks "socialist" means "communist totalitarianism"
it's a kneejerk pavlovian response from cold war era propaganda without any thought education or historical awareness
i'm not a socialist and i can think of problems with socialism. but at least i can talk about the concept on its merits and lack thereof, rather than being a blind moron as to what the word really means and substituting ignorance from an expired era, the cold war, when considering the word emptily, rather than the real ideology the word actually represents
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I wish people could think for themselves... NADER didn't split the vote and cost Gore a clear victory:
1) Gore won by the most conservative count. The supreme court made a corrupt ruling and appointed Bush the winner. It is not hard to figure that one out; but if you can't see it then you are capable of supporting a democracy.
2) Nader only had a tiny portion of the vote; it didn't split the DFL a lot of his people wouldn't vote for Gore. The Communist Party of Florida had more votes than the difference in the count (see #1.) If a portion of the Nader votes went for Gore you would have still had many areas so close it was still likely a mess would have happened.
3) Computer voting was alive and causing errors before anybody even noticed them (but they rushed in some IT people to fix the massive overvote "bugs")
4) Illegal banning of voters who might be black in a really corrupt scheme that should have put somebody in jail; it was intentional. The numbers of people on that were quite significant.
5) Don't forget the ballot which cased a jewish community to vote for a nazi sympathizer. (it only takes half a popcycle stick shove that kind of ballot out of alignment.)
6) Unverified and improper military ballots were counted anyway.
7) Fake directions for election day - the usual things like telling you to vote a day late or wrong location were going around as well. That old trick still happens around the nation.
8) Crazy waiting lines purposely engineered caused some people to turn away.
9) only 1 voting day; no real time off for it... and people propagandized to not vote (except the targeted stuff for certain demographics.)
Forget about Bush's brother, state campaign manager being in charge of the whole foobar process. Don't blame Gore or Nader - everything else was all wrong. A billion dollars was spent to make both candidates seem the same so it would turn out CLOSE which makes it easier to cheat in the tiny margins. In addition, the whole thing is like the Palestinian Government where it really has no power to do anything - it is just there to appease some people into thinking there is a democracy.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Paying for them is a simple matter of raising taxes on wealthy people.
ahhh yes, lets just take more from the rich to gove to the pooor, that has worked so well in the past....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
No, he would be considered pretty right wing in France, the UK, Italy, Germany, in fact... pretty much all of Europe.
Right-wing, or centrist? What are examples of European centrists to his left?
The interesting thing is that the majority of the 1% support increased taxes on the rich whereas the most vocal opponents of raising taxes on the rich, aren't.
lets just take more from the rich to gove to the pooor, that has worked so well in the past
It actually does work the exceedingly few times it's actually been done.
You know what the solution to poverty is? Money.
You can see examples of that not working in practice.
The French just tried your little theory and it caused a capital flight of investment out of France while at the same time elite interests were able to exempt themselves for most of it. Which meant the bulk of the costs would land on the middle class pushing them into the lower class thus expanding the lower class thus increasing the money needed to subsidize the lower class thus putting more pressure on what remains of the middle class, etc...
It doesn't work.
You people are like that monkey that keeps pressing the red button that causes him to get an electrical shock. Press the green peannut button, you fucking retards.
There is no easy answer to these problems. This notion of just tax the rich fails to keep in mind that it isn't money people want anyway.
People want food, housing, various goods, various services... and all those things are in limited supply and cost X because they are in Y supply. If you give everyone more money to buy Y it just causes X to increase proportionally because Y is a finite thing. The money we can just make by pressing buttons on a computer. Everyone want 100 trillion dollars? we could do that tomorrow no problem.
That would not change Y however. All you would have done is inflate the currency by changing the ratio between the money supply and Y.
If you want to help poor people, then you need to improve supply of good. That is you need to make more stuff. That means more housing, more factories, more farms, etc. And all of that will increase the supply of Y while reducing the cost per unit of Y which in this example is X.
How then do we increase production? Well, you need to encourage people to make stuff... that means business. And encouraging business to be make stuff means encouraging business in general.
And guess what one of the dumbest things you can do if you want to increase business is? Raise taxes. Because businesses generally do not expand in hostile tax environments.
The core misunderstanding you have is that you think "money" is actually a real thing. It isn't. It is a measure of value. It is like saying I have a 12 inch penis. The inches are the money but they're just numbers you write down on a piece of paper. They're not the throbbing dick.
What you want is that dick. And just redefining "inches" to mean something different doesn't actually get you any more dick when it comes to your turn. Lets say we redefine miles to mean inches such that I now say my dick is 12 miles long. Are you getting any more dick then you were getting before? Nope. Dick is the same length. You've just changed the unit of measurement.
So no, you cannot just raise taxes on the rich, you fucking ignorant peasant.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You have forgotten the most important, he is an Israel Firster. The only time he's really acted according to his mouth is when its concerning Israel.
Paying for them is a simple matter of raising taxes on wealthy people.
That's a brave thing for a wealthy person like yourself to say and I commend it. Wait, what? You aren't actually wealthy, and instead you just think that somebody who is "not you" should pay for it? Oh, that seems a little more convenient.
While marginal tax rates in the US are not nearly as high as those in many parts of Europe, our income tax system is progressive (i.e. rich pay more) and the lower tax burden is disporportionately structured to benefit the less wealthy. According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, "taxpayers with income over $100,000 a year earn 60 percent of the nation's income and pay 95.2 percent of the income taxes in the United States." Additionally, according to that same source, "Those making over $200,000 comprise just over 5 percent of the nation's taxpayers, earn 32.3 percent of the income, but pay 46.7 percent of total federal taxes and 70 percent of federal income taxes." European systems are actually more "fair" in the sense that larger portions of their incomes are collected in regressive taxes (i.e. everyone pays the same so poor feel it more) like the VAT.
Let's be grown-ups and admit that where we stand depends on where we sit. You probably are not "wealthy," whatever that means to you, and taxing those smug bastards sure sounds good to you, right? Conversely, I am not a "one percenter" (at least not in my state or region), but am part of a family with two working spouses with tech management jobs, and my family's Federal tax bill this year before adjustments and deductions closely approached six figures, or just slightly less than double the median income of the United States.
To someone who is certainly comfortable but by no means rolling in it - child care is ludicrously expensive, and we save as much as is feasible for retirement, taking a lot off our topline income - "oh let's just throw more taxes on people with money" does not sound nearly as good to me as it apparently does to you.
"95% of all Slashdot
The science is settled.
The H1-B program is fundamentally nuts, in ways which, although I may be wrong, I think people are not thinking about.
Let's say work visas stop now.
Companies can still hire me, as a European. I can still work for them. I just can't physically sit in an office in the USA.
So all we do is telecommute. Google hangouts, you name it. As an aside, I also by now being outside the USA pay no tax to Uncle Sam.
So if we say we end the H1-B program with an intent to stop non-Americans taking jobs in the USA, what do we do? do we now ban US companies from hiring non-Americans, or people physically outside of the USA? Christ, what about FREEDOM? this is MY money, MY company - who are you to tell me what I can or cannot do, whom I can or cannot hire? *what business is it of yours?*
And does this make even the slightest bit of sense, economically? this notion that reducing the labour pool size is good for, well, what is it good for? the economy? the people who are looking for these jobs? are we so naive to imagine that the US economy is so segregated from the rest of the world things will work in this way?
The whole programme is badshit insane, in funamental terms. It makes no sense, and the debate at it makes no sense.
Which can otherwise be described as ban on anonymous speech — at least, political speech.
We don't have a media monopoly, that's all that matters. Most likely, his being a Socialist, the solution will involve creating an official governmental media corporation (such as by vastly expanding NPR/PBS). USSR had such a monopoly on media, and now Russia has too. It is not pretty — and much worse, than what we have today.
Well, GP said "soviet experiment" and you asked for examples — here is another one.
They are perfectly equal already — there are no laws singling them out in any way.
Yeah, right. Would he properly privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mark? Without dealing with that giant elephant in the room, all "banking reforms" are meaningless.
Then you have no idea, what "soviet experiment" is. Likely, Mr. Sanders does not know it either. Both of you should be kept away from governing a country.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
This idiocy has been proposed enough times someone has already done the calculations:
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Uh yeah, you make a real compelling argument there... Actually, all I really got from that is that you don't understand economics, but you think about dicks a lot.
You're not the target. We're talking about people with an extra digit or two in their adjusted gross income box. The stratification of wealth is due entirely to capitalism, which is designed to never be fair or equal. The wealthy don't play by the same rules as you and I, so we need to level the playing field a bit. We're not restricting anyone from being wealthy, we're just rebalancing the game.
Because Americans have been brainwashed into believing that none of those things are good. The older I get and the more I scrutinize the viewpoints of my fellow Americans, the more I believe that we're a nation of fools.
Top marginal tax rates in the US on the wealthy were 95%.. but that was back when we had a thriving middle class, almost free education, unions that ensured a 40 hour work week, safe working environments and a political class that gave us Social Security and took the concerns of the many into consideration.
Now we have tuition that leaves students in debt for years after graduation, a miniscule middle class, no unions, cheap imported labor, a political class that passes laws only for the few...
I wonder what changed.
plenty of those wealthy only get their wealth by warping the laws of the land to bring more wealth in their direction. we're not talking about hard working small business owners here, we're talking about parasites
additionally, i am not sure why we should worry about these "patriotic americans" fleeing the country being that doing so would give us more leverage to seize the means of their ill gotten gains, which is the real problem
so good fucking riddance should they flee
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
whats even more interesting is how they say as much...but they never actually do pay the taxes they claim they want to be paying. soros is potentially facing jail time over it now
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
we have been throwing trillions of dollars at it since FDR and we are no better off now then we were then. in fact some would say we are worse off
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
They are the non-IT cast.
What changes are voters who don't understand marginal taxes and believe their 60k a year job would subject them to a death tax.
"Which can otherwise be described as ban on anonymous speech â€" at least, political speech."
It's okay for global corporations to finance the election?
So universal health care is a bad thing? Didn't Romney try this somewhat in MA?
How about when a gay couple adopt children, one of the "parents" gets killed and since states don't recognize the partnership the kid(s) are left with out a legal parent.
Get up!
What will it take for people to understand that it DOESN"T MATTER what politicians SAY, or what they promise? Look at Obama as the most recent example. He promised all sorts of great things, then promptly kept the status quo once he was elected. Same goes for pretty much every politician that I can remember in my lifetime.
Until these bastards can be held accountable for inaction on promises they made (and no, "not re-electing them" doesn't count as a punishment), this crap will continue.
Every incumbent needs to be voted out next election. Every. stinking. one. Get a fresh batch in there.
Who would say we're worse off today than in the 1930s?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Because it is commonly noted that the "rich" who actually get taxed tend to include a large number people who are in the middle class.
While yes, the tax would charge a rich individual more than a middle class individual in an absolute sense, there are a few things at work here:
The first one is obvious and needs little discussion. The rich are able to create various means of preserving their wealth in the face of general taxation. The rich are willing to pay "more", but "more" is not enough. Particularly when they're already hiding much of it anyway. Even then, at a certain point, it's mostly like keeping score.
Which leads to the next issue. While the rich can pay disproportionately on an individual level, they can't pay enough as a class to support the rest of the country for programs like free health care, even if you completely removed all of their wealth down to zero (which will not happen). They actually only bring in a trillion dollars a year as a class. That's HUGE for such a small number of people, but its not actually enough in total to operate a single payer program for everyone.
What happens is that everyone else has to chip in, and because the poor are poor and would be excluded, it falls square on the middle class to pay for it.
You may or may not be okay with that. However, there are some rather high tax rates in countries that do have things like universal health care, and it is more or less a universal tax on everyone except those who couldn't pay anyhow.
Let's not forget the "fees" for people who didn't want insurance under Obamacare. Who is paying those fees?
Not the rich, they would have no problem getting insurance and almost certainly have the best insurance available even without the encouragement.
Not the poor, they get subsidies to keep their policies affordable.
It's the people who are the working poor or young who did not pay for insurance previously. They may have insurance now, but it's expensive, and they don't need it. They are simply being forced to put in money to support a group pool.
Single payer health care is not Obamacare, but it would still need to tax the same people that are being taxed for Obamacare and is even more expensive.
So when I hear someone say that the "rich" will be paying the bill, I know I'm listening to someone who hasn't actually done the math. You will be footing the bill, and as usual, it will charge the middle class more than it will hurt the rich, progressive taxation or not.
That is why the wealthy are the ones who are not having the most problem with Obamacare or Single Payer. They're not the ones who will find the burden onerous.
Heh, it's funny, the majority here really hates the H1-B program or raising immigration quotas, and they probably felt betrayed when Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul, the libertarians' Internet hero of 2012) came out in favor of H1-B. And there's the populist sentiment that both parties are corrupt, so people here should coalesce around an outsider who might have a chance to at least make some noise in the primaries, or as a third party candidate.
But Communism collapsed in the early '90s, and even China is now more of an authoritarian economy than a Communist one. Most of the factories there are in fact owned and run by capitalists.
I remember reading about the election of '72 (yeah I'm old, but even that was before my time)... blue collar workers were quoted early in the primary season saying things like "it's either Wallace (an openly racist southern governor who was running on a third party ticket) or McGovern (the anti-war liberal Democrat)". In other words, people who seemed took a stand on principle and didn't give a damn what the party bosses thought. But the juxtaposition of Wallace and McGovern seemed crazy.
Dear God man! Don't use facts. Can't you see that we already used the slur "batshit crazy"? Once we call someone a name, you're not supposed to use facts to show us we're wrong! We won't accept such low handed behavior. The man's batshit cracy!
Now i'm going to have to retort something to the point that even if he isn't batshit crazy, he's an imbecile, as in he doesn't understand the things he's promoting.
We have an election to win here, son. Don't let the facts get in the way!
life isnt fair, if one works harder than another and makes better decisions with their lives, they deserve more.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I'm sorry, I can't hear you with my dick you mouth. It sounded like you wanted to have a point but couldn't stop commenting on the salty goodness.
If you'd like to make a rational comment, first take my dick out of your mouth and try again.
We're not going to get anywhere with your tongue wrapped around my member. :D
Look, shithead... I'd honestly like to have a reasonable discussion about this. But the problem is that the progressives see this as a quasi religious issue. It is their fucking faith. And anyone that doesn't bow down to their pathetic failed god is an infidel.
Well, guess what... that means I don't have to treat you as anything more than a religious fanatic. And that's how you'll be treated unless you back off that bullshit and make a coherent rational argument.
Just saying "tax the rich" is stupid. That's like saying "if we need money we should get more money" and you don't understand that your problem is not a lack of money.
We have literally infinite amounts of money. Money is an artificial construct used to measure value. What you want is STUFF not money. If I put you on a deserted island with big bags full of money, what would you do with it? You'd probably burn the crap to start fires because it has no inherent value. Even gold is totally fucking useless in nearly all contexts.
What you ACTUALLY want is stuff. You want food, housing, medicine, various services, etc. And all those things are not something you can just add more of with the press of a button.
And that means those goods and services have to be rationed. And how do you want to ration them, comrade? Possibly the way the Venezuelans do it or the soviets? Because that's looking really fucking effective isn't it? That's sarcasm. I'm explaining that because you're stupid.
So you're going to have to ration anything that is in anyway scarce. Food, water, electricity, housing, medical care... all them are scarce. Its sad and it would be awesome if there were enough to go around but there isn't.
The genius of capitalism is that it encourages production when people consume. This causes supply to increase which brings down prices which means more people can get more stuff.
It really isn't that complicated but the people that think "doh, lets just tax people more, durrr" are the sorts that think "money" is actually what anyone actually wants.
It isn't. Money's value is that you can use it as a medium of exchange for what you ACTUALLY want. Hookers and cocaine... submarines and skyscrappers. It doesn't really matter.
But you do not improve the lots of the common people by inflating currencies or taxing the wealthy because your real issue is a lack of supply.
I could give everyone on earth 1 billion dollars and they couldn't all have a Lamborghini because there aren't 5 billion Lamborghini on the planet. They literally do not exist at ANY price. You could offer 1 trillion dollars per car and you still wouldn't get one for every person on earth.
Which means giving people money is not the problem.
The first issue asshats like you have to grasp is that this is a production crisis. All the capital and labor markets are completely fucked up mostly because of people like you and it causes imbalances in the production system.
Companies are cutting back production and cutting back hiring and that means stuff is going to cost more because there is less of it and everyone in the middle of the economy is going to have less money to buy stuff which is going make money more expensive. But then the government is going to come in and inflate the currency which causes the value of savings to go down... and it is an endless cluster fuck of stupidity.
But by all means, presume to not be an empty vessel for whatever bullshit your likely marxist teachers dumped into your fucking head. *yawn*
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Nonpartisan my ass. The Tax Foundation is a right wing think tank born out of hatred of FDR and have been carrying water for the wealthiest of the wealthy ever since.
This elections Ross Perot? Or will he just fumble to make Hillary look good.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
It does if you look at it differently, as another way to erode American workers wages and benefits.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
[LBGT] are perfectly equal already — there are no laws singling them out in any way.
Nope, there are hundreds, if not thousands of laws that single them out, whether by name or omission. There are piles of laws on housing and other things that state you can't discriminate on race, gender, age, family status, religion, and/or other factors, but very few of them extend anti-discrimination laws to LBGT. This is singling them out as one of the non-protected classes is singling them out.
Learn to love Alaska
Caste dumbass.
That depends on what the money is used for.
If I walk up to someone on the street and give them a thousand dollars out of my pocket, there is the presumption that this would help them. Even putting aside obvious extreme cases like gamblers and drug addicts, that thousand dollars can very easily be burned up on things that will actually do little to remove people from poverty.
If my thousand dollars was used to help pay for a car, they can drive to work, that's better but they still have a depreciating asset that they have to maintain. If it was used to buy Christmas presents, then you have some happy kids, but you've bought something that does nothing for you in the long run.
Now what if you do something smart like invest it? Then you're likely to see some real value from it. In about thirty years. If and only if an emergency does not force you to withdraw it. In the meantime, you're still poor and you have to resist the urge to use that money for anything but as an investment or a payment that helps you on a continuing and increasing basis.
You don't want to give people money and expect that to end poverty. You want to remove incidences of bad decision-making and you have to buffer them from bad luck. Money can be a buffer, but if you continue to make bad decisions with the money you have, you're going to keep being poor.
There are anecdotes of people who make millions, either being rock stars, sports stars, or lottery ticket winners, and they lose it all. How do they end up that way? They would have been (temporarily) rich one-percenters just as surely as Bill Gates or the Koch Brothers are. The catch is that they have terrible decision making skills when it comes to money. They may spend it lavishly. They get bad advice and fail to learn how to invest. They may simply have weak personalities and are taken advantage of. They don't understand what you do with money, and then they lose it.
Although those are anecdotes, the same thing happens to tens of millions of people everyday in smaller, but more crucial situations. Poverty isn't always about helpless people being taken advantage of. It's more about the fact that it is more important to know how not to be poor than it is to actually have money thrown at you.
The point is that the solution to Poverty is *not* money. The solution to Poverty is *doing the right things* with money.
The fact you are painting people who make $100,000 a year as the "super rich" he's talking about taxing just shows you are talking out your asshole, sir.
+1, Funny.
supporting the concepts, and understanding the economics on how to give everyone everything for free are 2 different things.
That's the thing, opposing the bank bail outs means that he doesn't want to give everyone everything for free and it also means that he supports the free market to some degree.
Personally, I don't know much about his policies, so I don't even know if I support his positions, but I do know that when someone like yourself is using absolute quantifiers like 'everyone' and 'everything' when speaking about a particular political issue, then it means you've stopped listening rationally to the other side on that particular issue.
30K per year is barely a living wage for the average family of 4. Try 300k a year, and you're getting closer to the definition of "rich."
they never actually do pay the taxes they claim
Nonsense. Well-off people pay the vast majority of the income taxes in this country. Nearly half the people in the country pay no income taxes at all (though they still get to vote on what happens to the money collected from the other people who do).
The top 5% of earners pay almost 60% of the taxes. The top 25% of earners pay over 86% of the taxes. The bottom HALF of the country pays under 3% of those taxes. So how do you come up with "never actually do pay" - ? These numbers come from the IRS. The people who cash the checks you say aren't being written.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The solution to Poverty is *doing the right things* with money.
Cannot do the right thing with money if you have no money. Money is required.
So the top 5% of earners pays only 60% of the taxes, while just the top 1% has 48% of the money?
If the missing 4% of people are getting at least 12% of the money, then they're still getting off lucky.
Math is fun!
If you want to be seen, stand up. If you want to be heard, speak up. If you want to be respected, sit down and shut up.
lets just take more from the rich to gove to the pooor, that has worked so well in the past
It actually does work the exceedingly few times it's actually been done.
You know what the solution to poverty is? Money.
Yup, if we just took all of the money from the 1 percenters and shared it out equally, then everybody would get about $100k. Of course, that is a one time thing, because now the 1 percenters will be counted among the poor, and $100k is not going to help anybody out for long. It is less than 3 years of poverty level living.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
We just need to make H1-B's expensive to employers. That will insure that corporations who are looking for motivated well educated foreigners instead of lazy "special snowflake" domestic employees will have to decide that the foreign workers are worth the extra money.
First, enforce "comparable wages/jobs" rules. Second, impose a 20% to 30% tax on wages payable by the employer of an H1-B employee. Third, remove the cap entirely. This would result in it being impossible to hire foreign engineers to save money, but they would still be hired if they were at least 30% or so more effective than domestic talent. In reality, this wouldn't help save the jobs of those whining about H-1B employees, but it would force the whiners to recognize that employers won't give them a job but will happily shell out a LOT more money to get a more qualified H-1B employee -- i.e., it has little do do with money.
I've never hired an H-1B to save money -- in fact, they cost me more money than a domestic employee. However, I'd rather have five well educated motivated developers than 15 lazy uneducated bums with degrees from "respected" U.S. universities.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Doubtlessly, it didn't seem "crazy or dangerous" to you if your parents had bought you a pony. Except that it might well have cost you your college education.
Sanders voted for $1 billion in handouts to big corporations while claiming to oppose crony capitalism. That alone tells you how confused the man is.
Our public health care system covers about a third of Americans and consumes about half of our health care spending overall. When we take all that money, the US government is already spending more per capita over the entire population than the UK. How can you possibly believe that extending that kind of system to the entire US population would make US health care more efficient?
The problem with health care in the US is that it completely divorces costs from individual choice; patients have no motivation and no information to save money; they pick the latest and most expensive drugs and tests for everything because, hey, why not? That's the problem with the current system, and it's the problem with Sanders' system.
To make our health care system efficient, the system needs to be more market oriented: a health savings account started at birth with some kind of catastrophic insurance coverage. That's the only way to make it work.
The first number refers to income tax, the second number refers to net worth (it's probably not correct either, but who's counting).
Yeah, but garbage in garbage out.
Ah, yes, the language of fascist Germany revived.
Spoken like a member of the NSDAP.
You are really a disgusting piece of work.
It's very, VERY important to pay attention to the terms when someone starts flashing around statistics. For one, it's very easy to talk about something else entirely, but make it seem like you're offering a contrast rather than comparing apples and oranges.
For instance, "top 5% of earners pay 60% of income tax" is true, but entirely misleading, because we're only talking about INCOME tax. That's the people who get paychecks. We're not talking about the truly rich, who don't have to work for a living, they make their money in investments - that is, capital gains. Now, capital gains is taxed, but at a much lower rate. This is why Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. There are also other taxes that people pay, but income and capital gains are the biggest chunks when we're talking about an individual (depending on where you live at least, some states don't have an income tax and use sales/etc tax instead, so YMMV).
Capital Gains is taxed lower than income, unless it's short term gains (i.e. day trading or the like), and you can bet that anyone who's significantly wealthy enough can manage to hire people to make sure and avoid that.
The fact that people fixate on income is a fallacy, because regular income isn't where the truly rich get their money, nor is it even the work those people do. No, that's the money your money makes once you already have money.
Note that I'm not suggesting that soaking the rich is some panacea, or that being rich is an inherently bad thing etc etc, merely pointing out that income taxes are only a part of the puzzle, and not the one that applies when we're talking about the rich.
This is an outright lie. You probably don't even realize it's a lie because you've bought into the propaganda. Every person who hold a job pays taxes including those on income. Social security and medicare taxes are NOT exempt-able and they ARE income taxes. The only way to not pay social security and medicare/medicaid taxes is to not have income, something the wealthy are remarkably good at not paying for. On top of this they pay their state taxes, including income, cigarette, alcohol, gas, sales and property along with all the other miscellaneous taxes and fees. In fact as a percentage of their income the poorest among us pay the highest proportion of their income in taxes than anyone else.
The nugget of truth that makes your lie so insidious is that the poorest among us don't pay FEDERAL income tax but they still pay taxes and they still pay income taxes. This little lie and deception allows you to paint entire segments of our society as non-contributing freeloaders and it's NOT TRUE.
All your bullshit numbers are based solely on federal income tax. They disregard all the other taxes entirely as if they don't exist and it's complete and utter horseshit. The most important fact, the one you completely ignore is that the poorest among us pay something like 50% of their income in various federal, state and local taxes. As a percentage of income they are the highest taxed individuals in this country.
Personally I'm a big believer that those people who have benefited the most from the system and have the means to support it should be the ones that have the highest burden in paying for it. That is NOT asking a lot.
I would. -- roman_mir
It's not a lie, it's a distraction by statistic. Look at it again - "almost half the people in this country pay no income tax" which is true... ...except the statement was used to imply that "pays no income tax" means "pays no tax, at all" which is quite clearly NOT the case.
It's sort of like how Apple used to state in their ads how "Macs aren't affected by Windows viruses and malware!" Apple knew very well that Macs are no more affected by Windows malware any more than Windows machines would be affected by malicious code written for Mac/Linux/etc, so the statement is factually true. What they also know is that the average person hearing that statement doesn't realize the underlying nuance, and instead hears "Macs are immune to viruses!"
To get back to taxes, there's almost no one who doesn't pay any tax at all, whatsoever. Some people pay more, some people pay less. The fact that some people don't make enough income to get taxed on it shouldn't be what concerns us, it's that people who earn money through work pay a top marginal rate almost twice what the rate is for money earned by capital gains.
Sorry, parent made most of the same points, it's just late and I'm tired.
To add, the fixation on income tax is because it's the main tax that most people are familiar with, but it's also a major distraction from the fact that the tax the truly rich mostly pay, Capital Gains, is far, far lower - 20% for long term at the top bracket (and the people rich enough to pay that have accountants to make sure their income falls in that category, rather than short term, among other things).
it's a distraction by statistic
Nonsense. It's not a distraction, it's different topic than the ebb and flow of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare (which are transfer welfare taxes). Income taxes are what pay for all discretionary spending (the military, federal agencies like the EPA, the FAA, the FCC and a jillion other activities). There's a good reason we look at all of those differently than we do the entitlement programs.
... capital gains? You do realize that a whole lot of middle class people also earn capital gains, right? Directly or indirectly, through things like mutual funds. Warren Buffet's secretary can put a pizza's worth of cash every month into some investments when she's young, and can and should be looking forward to earning some money from that. You know, just like him: taking money on which she's already paid taxes, and putting it entirely at risk in an investment that stimulates the economy and if and when it happens to pay off, paying more taxes on that activity.
And
If Warren Buffet loses money in an investment? He doesn't get to write that off against his income taxes - he just loses it, plain and simple. But he's smart, and usually makes good investments. If he's making money, the money he risked is being put to very good use in an active economy. That's the entire reason why we reward that risk taking with a lower tax rate - because we want more of that risk taking to happen.
All of which has nothing to do with transfer entitlement taxes.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
ahhh yes, lets just take more from the rich to gove to the pooor, that has worked so well in the past....
It does. "Tax the rich" gave us the interstate highway system, generous GI bill benefits for WWII vets, and cheap tuition at state universities. The givebacks to "the rich" (by which politicians mean anyone making more than $60k) since the 80s are responsible for the infrastructure decay, the conversion of schools into daycare farms, and the US's declining technical dominance. Remember when Japanese cars were a joke?
It takes money to run a society. Programs that benefit "the poor" much more than their ability to pay. "I've got mine, fuck you," is not a healthy social philosophy.
SS and Medicare do not transfer wealth. They are paid for with specific taxes on income which either stops at a fairly low amount or the taxrate drops to a very low amount.
Also capital losses can be a write off.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Well, there you go.
You are welcome on my lawn.
evidence?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
You can in fact deduct losses from income, there would be few investment firms if you could not.
A paycheck is definitely a lower risk way to earn income, but also usually has a fairly low maximum cap compared to risking your own money or time.
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
Someone blinded by ignorance, ideology, or some combination thereof?
cause lord knows its not like social democratic policies have EVER been tried before, right?
just like guns are a totally unique problem to the US that no country has ever faced or solved before, right?
or healthcare?
or border policies?
or telecom regulations?
no, you're right. these are totallly unique things never before seen by anyone except the US.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
cause there is only one tax system in the country right?
cause there's no system of other taxes that disproportionately affect poor and low income people,
causing them to pay a far higher percentage of their income in overall taxation, right?
(idiot)
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
how much do they pay you to write this shit for them?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
"To make our health care system efficient, the system needs to be more market oriented: a health savings account started at birth with some kind of catastrophic insurance coverage. That's the only way to make it work."
That's your response to the US spending more per capita than the UK? You're incoherent. The UK has a much more socialized system that makes them much less sensitive to cost of services than US consumers.
If you want it to cost like the UK system, design it like the UK system. THAT is at least coherent thinking.
we're not.
specifically because of the programs we created since the 1930s.
without those programs the 2008 shitstorm would have made the 1930s look like a damp fart.
but the programs did their job: they arrested the fall and kept money moving in the system and reduced the severity of the crash.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Hillary Clinton isn't Bill Clinton
Uh, about that
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30550-corporations-are-bribing-bill-instead-of-hillary#
If you're interested in watching how money influences politics, you would be smart to not only track who Hillary accepts campaign contributions from, but just as importantly who is lining Bill's pockets as well.
In looking ahead to a likely presidency from Hillary, we can take cues from the actions of the married duo during her stint as the secretary of state. While Hillary made critical national decisions that could win or cost certain major corporations millions of dollars, Bill kept a busy schedule of delivering speeches for many of these same companies, collecting hefty speaking fees for his talks.
Although it plainly ventures into unethical territory, federal rules did not preclude Bill from cozying up to these corporations. Normally, politicians and their spouses can't accept money from companies that are lobbying the government, but an exception is made for payments for speaking to the companies. Given his resume, Bill can easily fetch top speaking fees without raising the kind of red flags that other political spouses would get for being in a similar position.
Make no mistake: these aren't nebulous connections that suggest a potential for wrongdoing. The International Business Times identified 13 mega-companies that paid Bill a total of $2.5 million in speaking fees while actively - and in many cases successfully - lobbying Hillary and the US State Department in the same three-month span.
Let's look at a few specifics. Tech companies have had some of the greatest successes with the Clintons. Shortly after paying Bill $175,000 to speak, Microsoft won a $4 million contract with the US State Department. Oracle's own government contracts increased by a couple million after giving Bill a $200,000 speaking fee. Meanwhile, Dell is probably the biggest winner of all. While lobbying Hillary, Dell hired an appearance from Bill for $300,000 - not long before the State Department decided to raise its contracts with the company from $2.5 million to a startling $28 million.
Perhaps Bill's words of motivation inspired these companies to negotiate better with the State Department. Or perhaps they, like fellow companies Cisco Systems, Goldman Sachs, PhRMA and Pacific Rubiales, found that padding the Clinton bank account had some added advantages.
Debt is the most valuable thing rich people own. It's much safer to own indebtedness than other kinds of property. Police and armies protect debt for them.
--excerpt follows--
⦠the modern world has actually converted debt into wealth. Positive wealth, in the form of physical assets such as land, houses, cars, etc. is ultimately perishable, but negative wealth (i.e. debt) need not be so. In fact, it is much more convenient to own 'debt' than physical assets:
"⦠the ruling passion of individuals in a modern economy is to convert wealth into debt in order to derive a permanent future income from it -- to convert wealth that perishes into debt that endures, debt that does not rot, costs nothing to maintain and brings in perennial interest" (p.423). They explain further: (p.424) "Although debt can follow the law of compound interest, the real energy revenue from future sunshine, the real future income against which debt is a lien, cannot grow at compound interest for long. When converted into debt however, wealth discards its corruptible body to take an incorruptible one. In so doing, debt appears to offer a means of dodging nature, of evading the second law of thermodynamics, the law of randomization, rust and rot. But the idea that all people can live off the interest of their mutual indebtedness is just another perpetual motion scheme -- a vulgar delusion on a grand scale."
------
Daly H. and J. Cobb, 1994, _For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future_, Beacon Press, Boston
so the rich and corporations do not use their money to change the laws to get even more money, for no extra effort?
you're ignorant and delusional
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
No, you are incoherent. As I was saying, the socialized portion of the US health care system already spends more three times as much as the UK system per patient; obviously, socialization of the health care system isn't working in the US.
Relative to people who earn less than 2k/year people who earn 30k are rich. Thus was his point.
It is less than 3 years of poverty level living for a family of seven.
FTFY.
In order for your original statement to be true, you'd need at least seven people in your household according to the 2015 HHS poverty guidelines. For a single individual, $100,000 is roughly 8.5 years of poverty-level living.
But that's not the wealthy people that politicians are talking about when they discuss raising taxes on the wealthy. The point was irrelevant.
Why are you telling me? I wasn't "flashing statistics", I was pointing out that the GP post was comparing apples and oranges.
You need to look at the combination of corporate taxes and capital gains taxes, because capital gains are simply corporate profits that haven't been paid out to you as dividends. So, if the company pays a dollar in corporate taxes on their profits, that comes out of your capital gains as much as if you pay a dollar in capital gains taxes on your personal tax return.
When you do that, you'll see that the US has one of the highest tax rates on capital gains of all nations, ahead of most European countries (only Denmark, Italy, and France are higher).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
That's also one of the main reasons corporations are leaving the US: not only are they subject to excessive regulations and cost of doing business, they also face a very tax-unfriendly environment.
Your "statistic" is true only if you choose not to count FICA as a "tax".
I consider anything the goverment takes from my paycheck a "tax" (excluding court ordered payments), regardless of whether I receive some future benefit.
You are being sloppy with terminology too. You are trying to point out the taxes on _wages_ vs other types of income, but you aren't using the term wage or salary. Investment income is still income and still taxed. What you are trying to say, I think, is that the income tax rate on wages is higher than the tax rate on dividends and capital gains. Also, Social Security and Medicare tax only apply to wage income (including self-employment), but not other types of income.
That's a brave thing for a wealthy person like yourself to say and I commend it. Wait, what? You aren't actually wealthy, and instead you just think that...
This is a textbook example of a straw-man argument. It is clear that this statement is logically fallacious. You lose. You may perform seppuku now.
Any claim of there being "thousands" of anything not accompanied by even one example is invalid. Fail.
Oh, well, if we start counting omissions, we can get really far. There are no laws defending blonds or red-heads against discrimination by brunettes either. Can a politician proposing to ban discrimination based on hair-color to our thick books be confident of your vote?
How about folks, whose name begins with "Mi*"? There is not a law anywhere in the world (!) explicitly protecting us — how do you sleep at night knowing of this ongoing travesty?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Persons who care about putting the heat on tech companies to demand more women in tech should see the correlation. I'm certain that if these companies were faced to confront the shortage they bemoan about, without the enabling of H-1B visas, they would have hit on the notion of pushing for more women in the pipeline long before 2014. Just sayin'.
There is no Nash equilibrium to be found if you try to be a tax haven.
Your rhetorical question is the same as "is it Ok for child-molesters to roam the streets" — you need to seriously violate privacy rights of everybody to even learn, which money comes from "global corporation" or who is a known "sex offender".
And the answer to both questions is "Yes". You can ask a politician, who gave him money — and draw conclusions from answers or evasions — but you can not ban it outright. Certainly not according to Slashdot's prevailing opinion.
It is certainly something USSR had — and it was as bad as the rest of what they had USSR.
Ultimately, it is unfair — a citizen pays taxes into the common pool, but, when he needs treatment, it is up to the pool's administrators to decide, what is and what is not "appropriate" treatment (or, maybe, he deserves only the end-of-life counselling). Sure, insurance companies have a very similar arrangement (except any of them would be torched to the ground for even mentioning EOL), but insurance companies compete with each other and people can switch between them as they see fit.
"Somewhat" is a qualifier, you can drive a truck through, is not it? Your question is irrelevant, though, and the answer is "No" — Romney did not introduce "Universal" healthcare in Massachusetts.
Is a paraplegic being discriminated against, when he is told, he can not play volleyball or practice karate? If the law requires adoptions to favor married couples, then any unmarried couple is disqualified. It is not anybody's fault that (most) gays would not marry — any more than that the paraplegic can neither jump nor kick.
But "discrimination" it is not — and neither the gays' nor the paraplegics' predicament can be rectified by a politician or any legislation, only by, one hopes, some future medical breakthroughs.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
and is decreasing the deficit, but somehow I doubt you are actually interested in the truth.
for the injuries that are inflicted on them too. I mean, if they would just do what the aggressors wanted, none of the punishment would have been necessary.
where your friends lied their asses of to get their little war and insulted the patriotism of anyone that dared to point out that the entire thing was bullshit.
is not a substitute for admitting that you are wrong.
caused by bushes failures do you feel that you can legitimately place on other people.
That would be funny in a sitcom, but not in the real world where the grownups have to continuously clean up after those spoiled children.
is this an attempt to have some sort of democrat primary this year?
Therefore, in my opinion, he just guaranteed he will not get elected.
The One Percent will not support it.
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
As I was saying, the socialized portion of the US health care system already spends more three times as much as the UK system per patient; obviously, socialization of the health care system isn't working in the US.
Maybe because the money isn't used in the correct way in the first place? Why not fix that aspect first?
That's twice. The first was telling the press that he was busy, he had work to do. Now he questions H1B's. He's 2 and 0. Bernie, just may go Obama on Hilary,(again), if she can't get in front of this contrived enforced resession.
throwing 30 billion dollars at the auto industry... for them to go bankrupt ANYWAY...was not the right decision. along with 10000 other decisions that lead up to the collapse.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
what you ignore while you talk about capitol gains is they already paid taxes on that income. why should they pay again??? let alone at a higher rate???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
capital gains have already been paid income tax on prior to investing. so you need to add the income tax rate to the capital gains rate to get the real rate of tax there
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
id blame regulation and overbearing government for those problems, not the rich
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
it might not be who they are talking about, but it is who always gets hit
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
so... vote out the people changing the laws for them? thats too obvious....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Sanders is very skeptical of the H-1B program, ...
Huh???? It ain't about skepticism, and if Sanders, a congressional critter, and supposedly with a law degree, still CANNOT figure out that it is AGAINST THE FRIGGING LAW!!!! American workers cannot be replaced unless it is proven that no qualified workers can be found, AND SINCE THEY ARE in the effing position to begin with, that goes against the law.
Which is why the next two videos are soooo fundamental and sooo important: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Excellent points, overall, his record is the best, it is on a few individual items where he falters, i.e., voting down the food stamp legislation and then stating he had second thoughts about that vote, and not being VOCAL ENOUGH about jobs offshoring and the use of foreign visa replacement scab workers!
So all those SEC filings I've perused over the years, all those GAO reports, and various other books and reports and filings on deferred income and hedge fund managers and hedge fund people and private equity types is all lies?????
I think not, mofo! So how's about putting up or STFU! And to those ignorant of forensic finance, the super-rich and the hedge fundsters and private equiteers routinely give themselves "loans" from their offshore monies, which means they transfer their money back themselves in not taxable form, since their so-called "interest" they pay is not only non-taxable, but is really just transferring more money offshore!
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you referring to the GM bailout?
THIS auto bailout?
http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.c...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Sure. Vote 'em out. Politicians should not be so easily corruptible (which is why I support publically funded campaigns and term limits) .But what about the ones who are *doing the corrupting*? Just let them off scot free? I don't think so... unfortunately the SEC and the FED is so thoroughly compromised as to be worthless.
C|N>K
that is why we keep on calling out morally bankrupt losers like you every time you insult our intelligence by trying to pretend that you do not bear responsibility for all of the death and destruction.
i dont know whats worse: the blatant bullshit this idiot spews, or the idiot who modded him insightful.
of course, thats assuming he's not just sock puppet modding his own comments, which im already half convinced he does.
no one with more than a single brain cell should be capable of stating or reading the words
"They are perfectly equal already — there are no laws singling them [LGBT] out in any way."
let alone be taken seriously and modded up for saying it.
theres also the "universal health care" presented once again as if the idea is a brand new concept never before tried, and his once again showing his support for the ownership of politicians by those with the most "speech".
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The Executive:
1) Writes the budget. The budget defines how money is spent. How much money is spent has just a little bit to do with the national debt
2) Signs or vetoes legislation. Presidents say "I will veto this bill if it does/does not do X" all the time.
3) Is the leader of his party, and largely dictates his party's agenda. Even as a lame duck, Obama can cut off campaign money for Dems running for reelection next year if they aren't "team players" on the budget.
The president has more power and influence over the budget than entire committees or leaders of the respective chambers. That's not quite the polar opposite of "no power", but it's pretty close.
"someone bribed the bank guard and robbed the bank"
"so fire the guard, problem solved"
"what about the robbers?"
"uhhh...."
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The shutdown was caused by the veto, not the passing of the bill. The passing of the bill was valid and would have resulted in a working government, then Clinton took an action that caused the government to shut down.
I don't see why it matters so much to you. What does it matter who you blame for the shutdown? It was a good thing, not a bad thing.
Learn to love Alaska
You want to play this game? Fine. I'm well within the 1% of US by income, and while the majority of my income isn't from capital gains, they are a sizable contribution due to stock bonuses and such. I'm quite okay with making personal income tax more progressive, and raising capital gains tax to match personal income, even though that would mean more money taken out of my pocket every year. Why? Well, perhaps because I don't want another Baltimore in my neighborhood?
Don't give any poverty 'victims' anything but a CHANCE to succeed. Redistributing wealth does NOT mean handing out anything but advice on how to hold on to your money and invest like rich people do. You know, in a place like public school??? Why aren't we told about falling under the credit 'thumb of life' there? A hand up not a hand out. Get real you whinners. I donated $10 to Bernie for a statement. He has a chance if he opposes the status quo. Everyone knows we HAVE to do SOMETHING to fix our (best government corporate money can buy.)
Quite right: why not fix that first. I.e., instead of first switching over to single payer and then figuring out how to save costs, do it the other way around: first, the vast, existing public health care system in the US should figure out how to become cost efficient, and once they have proven they can do that, then we can revisit the question of whether we can switch to single payer. I won't hold my breath.
SS and Medicare do not transfer wealth.
What? Each year, people's wages are taxed into those programs, and funds are transferred, that year, to the people who receive it. There is no "savings account." There is no "I paid into Social Security, so I'll get X when I retire." The amount that retired/disabled people get from that entitlement program is determined legislatively each year, and if you bother to read the fine print in your SS statement, you'll see that they explicitly remind you that there is no guarantee you'll get any future benefits.
Each year, funds are transferred from the people who pay to the people who collect.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
how much do they pay you to write this shit for them?
That's a very insightful way to address the substance of the matter. Obviously you're not willing to say the actual numbers or description of the situation is incorrect ... you're just mad at someone for pointing it out? I get that. But you're not really making any sort of lucid point.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
What I am worried about is them moving their wealth out of the country. And how exactly is the law going to distinguish between those who are hard working business owners and the parasites? The most important point is that the vast majority of the wealth we are talking about is not cash. Exactly who is going to be willing to give the government cash for it after the government confiscated it from someone else? What will happen in your system of "taxing" the wealthy is that wealth will be taken from those with insufficient political connections and given to those with political connections. However, none of that will generate significant revenue for the government.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
i get what you are saying however what I am saying is you cant fix that problem without fixing the underlying problem, being political corruption
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
yes, absolutely, political corruption is a crime with a corruptor and a corrupted
why do you want to focus all blame on only one side of a deal that is the fault of two sides?
why do you focus zero blame on the guy who is paying for and often initiating the corruption? you think it's only innocent corporations being reached out to by sleazy politicians? seriously?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
because if you take away the people being bribed, others are no longer bribing. If we punish those bribing, but not those taking the bribes, they will simply be bribed again.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Haters gonna hate.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
you want to take away the government?
you want to magically remove corruptibility from the human race?
you don't want to go after the slimy assholes doing the corrupting?
you're a moron, really. not a baseless insult, an objective evaluation of your thinking. you want to ignore corruptors and focus only on the corrupted. fucking stupid
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
no the only moron here is you who cant seem to grasp the simple concept that im stating
who has the power to create the framework that the companies work in - the government
Vote out the people who are writing the rules for the big businesses, and vote in people who will follow the constitution, rather than bend to whatever some business wants
I in NO way, said dont ALSO go after the businesses who are breaking the law. they should pay as well.
My point was simple, if you only take out the people paying the bribes, and not those accepting them, someone else will step up and start bribing the people in government
objective- i dont think that word means what you think it means based on that worthless attempt at an insult based on your own misunderstanding of a simple idea.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
No, it is not. Two blonds can have a brunette child, for example.
So cite one, where the accusation was based on the supposed victim(s) hair-color.
I will not respond again until you offer a valid link — you've made enough unsubstantiated claims already.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
i'm saying take out both, you're focusing only on one side
this is retarded beyond belief. if government were weaker or nonexistent, companies would still exist, and merely form their own security forces, against which you have no right to redress. power is not magic that government creates, it is merely assumed by whomever exerts it. why do you want to weaken the only institution you have on your side, government, and allow a freer hand to those who are already abusing you (corrupting your government) and would happily abuse you more without pesky rules and regulations?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That's like calling Libertarians moderate republicans. The Clintons have burned more democrats than republicans. They are sociopaths hiding behind the jackass mascot.
Also no one is going to vote in a post stroke 70+ something old white woman with internationalist ties. You can say what you want about Paul or Omalley, but both of them are least pro American (not saudi/israeli fanboys) - i think. Though I have seen some ads for Paul supporting Israel, that's pure campaign - i think.
what you ignore while you talk about capitol gains is they already paid taxes on that income. why should they pay again??? let alone at a higher rate???
That is absolutely false. From the definition of capital gains:
When you sell a capital asset, the difference between the basis in the asset and the amount you sell it for is a capital gain or a capital loss. Generally, an asset's basis is its cost to the owner, but if you received the asset as a gift or inheritance, refer to Topic 703 for information about your basis. You have a capital gain if you sell the asset for more than your basis. You have a capital loss if you sell the asset for less than your basis. Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, are not deductible.
You are not re-taxed on your original earnings (the "basis"). You are taxed on the growth in value or gain (hence the name).
How about we return to the prosperity of the 50s and 60s, and their tax rates?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Much like you refuse to douche that sandy vagina.
You're deluded.. without those programs we'd still be in the great depression. If you think the financial "crisis" of 2008 comes anywhere close to the situation we were in before the new deal then you are just absolutely crazy.
Do remember that income taxes are not the only taxes that affect people. They're just the most progressive, which means that people of a certain political persuasion tend to talk about them without talking about other taxes.
Look, my family is well off, and we're open to paying more taxes. However, I keep reading about rich people paying less of their income in taxes than we do, proportionately, and I am not happy about that. (Remember the year Warren Buffett described his taxes as proportionally less than his secretary's? They were ludicrously lower than ours.) It seems that, of all the major ways to make money, actually working for it is the most taxed, which I find ridiculous.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
you are not grasping what I am saying. I will try and make it simple as possible for you
Yes, worry about both
when I say take out the government, im saying vote out the people getting bribed and stop voting incumbents in over 80% of the time. hard to bribe people when they change every few years
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Suppose I have $100K. Presumably, I've already paid all necessary taxes on the $100K. Now, I buy stocks with it, and a few years later they're worth $150K, and I sell them. I pay capital gains taxes on the $50K, not the $100K, and I pay no actual income taxes on it. That's the $50K I haven't paid taxes on yet, so unless you have some sort of obscure point you're bad at getting across, you're wrong.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yup. This is why I consider the FICA contributions to be a particularly regressive tax, and not something like pension contributions. I also consider the deceptively named employer's portion to be a tax, although at least I don't pay income tax on it. It's money coming from the payroll allocation of my employer that the Feds get whether I like it or not. If you've ever been self-employed, you see the full scale of these taxes on your income, and, believe me, it's a shock if you haven't been through it before.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
He's just pocketing the campaign money which is what he does every time. He runs every time and all he does is soak up campaign money.
Just like all those other times he ran for president, right? Like back in ... wait, who are you talking about? This article is about Bernie Sanders. While he has talked on the national stage many times before this is the first time he's ever declared himself to be running for president.
They don't pay their fair share.
With all the tax loophole schemes and what not, the effective rate is substantially less. Ie, 15% for Mitt Romney.
Warren buffet pays less tax as a percentage than his secretary does.
So that is the complaint that the rich are not paying their fair share, despite contributing to a large portion of taxes. It could be more, much more if the loopholes were done away with.
- There is nothing rhetorical about corporations funding elections, it's the way it's done. ....
- Yes the USSR sucked, surely we can do better.
- What did Romney sign into law? Lets see:
Chapter 58 had several key provisions: the creation of the Health Connector; the establishment of the subsidized Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program; the employer Fair Share Contribution and Free Rider Surcharge; and a requirement that each individual must show evidence of coverage on their income tax return or face a tax penalty, unless coverage was deemed unaffordable by the Health Connector.[23]
- Regarding your comparison between gays and paraplegics, what? (slaps head)
Get up!