Bernie Sanders: "A 90% Tax Rate isn't too high."

Idiots wrote:

The Gallant Pig-Man wrote:

Yeah, much better to elect someone like Trump, who has experienced bankruptcy before and is running on fiscally sustainable policies such as building a giant wall along the southern border, identifying and deporting millions of illegal immigrants, and maybe starting a war.

.

Anyone who thinks Trump's experiences with bankruptcy are a bad thing is an idiot. Bankruptcy is not a sign of bad business skills. In many ways, it's the opposite and would indicate that Trump would be an excellent candidate if you want the government to be more financially efficient.

I agree. A wise president would default on the national debt since it's mathematically impossible to pay it off without causing civil unrest. A guy I follow named Doug Casey argues for this.

Stupid is as stupid does wrote:

What does taxes on dividends have to do with anything? Investors have already paid taxes on their earnings. They are risking whatever they invest. If they lose all will govt. compensate them?

You can deduct capital losses, so yeah, the government actually does compensate them. How do you think so many corporations and wealthy people end up with $0 or even negative tax bills in many years?

Sanders supporters and Trump supporters have a LOT in common.

Well, the debt to China isn't going to pay for itself.

Liberalism = a mental disorder wrote:

Bruinboy wrote:

Sure...all they have to do is give their accountant a call.

And their tax lawyers.

Don't forget their lobbyist and offshore banker

jon secada wrote:

Sanders supporters and Trump supporters have a LOT in common.

I think you are on to something. Both get up and pull out a bunch of sound bites with no plan and/or no realistic idea for implementation.

Rich people make too much (cue applause)

All new wealth is going to the top 1% (cue applause)

Big banks are bad (cue applause)

Let's build a wall (cue applause)

We need to deport them all (cue applause)

Neither guy has a good plan for working with Congress or anyone else to implement their wild ideas.

Sander's statement is empty. That is the only real criticism it. People get way over obsessed with tax rates. But tax rates on what? Until you answer that question a politicians rhetoric on what the tax rate should be doesn't say anything.

In fact it actually creates a paradox. The more a rate increases, the more meaningless it is because increasing tax rates increases the value of deductions.

Example: An employer is in a 90 percent tax bracket. He has an employee making $100K. The value of that business deduction is $90K. Under Rand Paul's plan where he is in the 14% tax bracket the value of the deduction is only $14K.

The only reason you hear so much about lowering tax rates is because super wealthy have huge amounts of pent up deferred tax payments built into their assets. They want to sell these assets but it will trigger things like depreciation recapture at ordinary tax rates. Notice that Republican plans talk a good game about doing away with loopholes and maybe having a VAT. But virtually all of it goes to financing huge tax rate cuts. It has nothing to do with creating jobs. Those plans only serve to cater to the super wealthy so they can liquidate those assets and keep their money.

The people who would pay that 90% do absolutely no work at all. They are so rich that their money generates more money for them for free.

Whether they get to keep that money has nothing to do with fairness. If the government weren't protecting them, they would lose ALL of it immediately by the law of the jungle. Taxes are their payment for that protection. If the government doesn't want to protect them for less than 90%, well, business is business, they can look for a better deal in some other country. But most of them stay right here no matter what the tax rate.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Cracky wrote:

No, a crackpot is someone who thinks that working 80-120 hours per week is not enough to feed your kids. How many kids does your example family have, 40???

2 or 3 jobs is not the same thing as 80-120 hours.

Seriously, how stupid are you?

Not nearly as stupid as you if you don't understand the point of what I wrote. Good job being dense as usual.

Precious Roy wrote:

He was talking about the last time the US had a 90% top marginal tax rate. That was under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It was also a period of tremendous economic growth for the lower and middle classes in the US. The current massive disparity over the distribution of wealth is partially attributable to very low tax rates on dividends and the top marginal tax rate. When taxes on dividends are high and the top marginal tax rate is high, investors will look for safe long term investments instead of high risk/high return bets. Corporations can afford to better compensate employees without running the risk of sudden devastating capital flight. The economy then become demand driven, like it was in the 1950s under Eisenhower instead of a bubble laden supply side economy created by the fed and low tax rates.

Can you tell me more about how tax rates affect economic prosperity more than expanding the effective size of the workforce by adding women in significant numbers for the first time, providing manufactured goods to nations recovering from a global war, having basically zero competition from other countries in rebuilding mode, and the effect of rapid advances in technology?

Cracky wrote:

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

2 or 3 jobs is not the same thing as 80-120 hours.

Seriously, how stupid are you?

Not nearly as stupid as you if you don't understand the point of what I wrote. Good job being dense as usual.

So in other words you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about other than it comes out of your ass.

Well done.

We need to start chopping off heads on Wall Street and the Hamptons. Anybody in the 90% bracket is a leach on society.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

So in other words you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about other than it comes out of your ass.

Well done.

Nothing you said has anything to do with what we were talking about. Every time you post you let us know how dumb you are. Try rereading my post again. Ask a friend for help if you need to.

stupid is as stupid posts wrote:

Stupid is as stupid does wrote:

What does taxes on dividends have to do with anything? Investors have already paid taxes on their earnings. They are risking whatever they invest. If they lose all will govt. compensate them?

You can deduct capital losses, so yeah, the government actually does compensate them. How do you think so many corporations and wealthy people end up with $0 or even negative tax bills in many years?

Here is a top fifteen list from last year. Call me crazy: a Fortune 500 corporation has a negative tax rate without sustaining losses? Yeah, I think I would call that a "loophole."

Cracky wrote:

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

So in other words you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about other than it comes out of your ass.

Well done.

Nothing you said has anything to do with what we were talking about. Every time you post you let us know how dumb you are. Try rereading my post again. Ask a friend for help if you need to.

Doubling down on stupidity, I see. Well, I suppose that is your option.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Cracky wrote:

Nothing you said has anything to do with what we were talking about. Every time you post you let us know how dumb you are. Try rereading my post again. Ask a friend for help if you need to.

Doubling down on stupidity, I see. Well, I suppose that is your option.

You can't understand the argument so you resort to personal attacks. Way to go.

Sure Randy sure wrote:

I The welfare moms who have baby after baby just for a bigger check.

THAT THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH OUR ECONOMIC PROBLEMS IS THE BIGGEST RACIST MYTH OF ALL....AND THERE ARE MANY TO CHOOSE FROM ON THE RIGHT.

Cracky wrote:

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Doubling down on stupidity, I see. Well, I suppose that is your option.

You can't understand the argument so you resort to personal attacks. Way to go.

Yet another public display of your stupidity. Keep it up - you're doing great!

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Yet another public display of your stupidity. Keep it up - you're doing great!

Haha yes! You've given in. I won!