Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
BigSteelThrill

Bernie Sanders HQ! Suffered heart attack.

Recommended Posts

Bernie Sanders' Socialism is as American as Apple Pie

Interesting poll numbers from the article:

The Pew poll found that young Americans are about equally divided in their attitudes toward socialism and capitalism. Among 18-to-29 year olds, 49 percent had a positive view of socialism, while 47 percent had a positive view of capitalism. Similarly, only 43 percent had a negative view of socialism, compared with 47 percent who had a negative view of capitalism.

"Many young people associate capitalism with inequality, big corporations, and poverty," Joseph Schwartz, a Temple University political scientist, told me in an interview.
"During the Cold War, socialism was identified with Communism, which meant totalitarianism and dictatorship. It wasn't a very positive image," said Schwartz. "But things have changed since the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. If people now in their 20s and 30s have any image of socialism at all, it is probably northern Europe, particularly Scandinavia. They know that northern Europe has less poverty, more equality, and more social mobility. And they know that Canada, which has a strong socialist party [called the New Democratic Party], is a more equal and humane society than the United States. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie Sanders Raises $3 Million In Four Days

With the help of a crew of former aides to President Barack Obama, Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) campaign has raised $3 million in four days for his presidential campaign -- a dramatic indication that he won’t be confined simply to a long-shot role in the Democratic primary.

Sanders, who is running for president as a Democrat, announced on Wednesday that he has retained the services of the firm Revolution Messaging to run digital ads and online fundraising. The staffers with the firm who will be working on Sanders’ campaign include Revolution Messaging’s founder, Scott Goodstein, who ran the 2008 Obama campaign's social media and mobile programs; Arun Chaudhary, who was the first official White House videographer; Shauna Daly, who served as deputy research director on Obama’s 2008 campaign; and Walker Hamilton, who was a lead programmer for that campaign.

"Like a lot of Obama supporters, we were looking for a candidate with a track record of doing the right thing -- even if it meant taking on Wall Street billionaires and other powerful interests. A candidate who could inspire a movement," said Goodstein. "Bernie Sanders is that candidate."

Due to his long-standing criticism of the influence of big-money interests on government, Sanders has strong online and grassroots appeal, which he hopes to leverage to raise the money needed to fund a presidential campaign. And so far, the strategy looks savvy. The campaign has received roughly 75,000 contributions, and the average amount is $43. According to a campaign adviser, 99.4 percent of the donations have been $250 or less, and 185,000 supporters have signed up on the website BernieSanders.com.

Bringing on former Obama aides to help amplify that momentum is, perhaps, by design. Months before Sanders formally announced, his longtime adviser Tad Devine told The Huffington Post that he saw Obama’s 2008 White House race as the template for the type of campaign the Sanders camp would have to run to prove successful. By that, Devine didn't mean raising historic amounts of funds and utilizing new technologies when it comes to organizing. Rather, he was talking about appealing to a broader pool of voters, not just down-the-line Democrats.

"I think ultimately, if he gets into this thing, he is going to look for support across a broad spectrum of groups," Devine said at the time. "If he gets into this thing, I think people will find out that Bernie Sanders’ politics are not traditional."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Internet hype machine is starting to wind up. Got a targeted email from Bernie's campaign touting this video made by a "fellow redditor".

Total pandering to my sensibilities, but it worked.

Edited by mcintyre1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Internet hype machine is starting to wind up. Got a targeted email from Bernie's campaign touting this video made by a "fellow redditor".

Total pandering to my sensibilities, but it worked.

That's a really good ad.

I think Jon Stewart captured it, "he has a set of consistent principles, that he has run on his entire political life."

"He is truly an honest man."

I hope this country can get back to talking about ideas, that's where we belong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Internet hype machine is starting to wind up. Got a targeted email from Bernie's campaign touting

made by a "fellow redditor".

Total pandering to my sensibilities, but it worked.

Yeah I'm pretty much all in on Bernie at this point. Gonna send him some money. Gonna give him.my vote even if I have to write it in come November. Hillary has already sold herself to the highest bidder and we know damn well it wasn't average Americans who won the auction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Bernie told CNN today he wants to provide free college just like the countries we compete against provide for their kids. But he then said he would raise taxes on trade transactions to pay for it. Not sure why. It would cost the US less to just pay for it then it costs us now to lend money to pay for it. By a couple billion dollars IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Bernie the most 'anti-war' 'pro-peace' 'non-interventionist' candidate running for 2016?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Bernie the most 'anti-war' 'pro-peace' 'non-interventionist' candidate running for 2016?

Yes. He also voted against the Iraq war for whatever that's worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Bernie the most 'anti-war' 'pro-peace' 'non-interventionist' candidate running for 2016?

Yes. He also voted against the Iraq war for whatever that's worth.

The Reddit AMA was very good. My only issue were his votes against NASA funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Bernie told CNN today he wants to provide free college just like the countries we compete against provide for their kids. But he then said he would raise taxes on trade transactions to pay for it. Not sure why. It would cost the US less to just pay for it then it costs us now to lend money to pay for it. By a couple billion dollars IIRC.

The other issue I have with that particular plan is that I believe they tried a similar tax in Switzerland or somewhere that resulted (as expected) in a massive drop in the number of the trades that were being taxed, something like 90% less. My question is whether that is expected and accounted for with this policy change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Bernie the most 'anti-war' 'pro-peace' 'non-interventionist' candidate running for 2016?

Yes. He also voted against the Iraq war for whatever that's worth.

The Reddit AMA was very good. My only issue were his votes against NASA funding.

Yeah, I didn't love that he didn't have a great answer for why he had done that, but I do have to give him credit for answering a tough question that most would have simply avoided. My view is that he probably voted against them for reasons related to things that might have been tacked on to the bill, or that he felt the limited funds going around (unless you're the military) could be better spent elsewhere on jobs, health, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Bernie the most 'anti-war' 'pro-peace' 'non-interventionist' candidate running for 2016?

Yes. He also voted against the Iraq war for whatever that's worth.

From Bernie's own words in the AMA:

Q: [Do you believe in the idea of a just war?]:

  1. Well, that is a very big hypothetical. Yes I do believe that there can be just wars. But, you are talking to somebody who opposed Vietnam, who voted against the first Gulf War, who voted against the War in Iraq and who believes the United States has been far far too aggressive militarily in the last many years. We have got to work with the international community not only in trying to create peaceful resolutions to conflict, but to address the underlying causes of war. This is not easy stuff. But that is the direction in which we have to move.
Edited by mcintyre1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Bernie the most 'anti-war' 'pro-peace' 'non-interventionist' candidate running for 2016?

Yes. He also voted against the Iraq war for whatever that's worth.

The Reddit AMA was very good. My only issue were his votes against NASA funding.

Yeah, I didn't love that he didn't have a great answer for why he had done that, but I do have to give him credit for answering a tough question that most would have simply avoided. My view is that he probably voted against them for reasons related to things that might have been tacked on to the bill, or that he felt the limited funds going around (unless you're the military) could be better spent elsewhere on jobs, health, etc.

Oh no, I agree. A vote for ten Alaskan bridges and NASA funding should be voted down. If I really cared, I'd look at what the bills actually contained.

I would gladly vote for him, though as a Republican in NY, I'm not liking my chances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More than 20 years ago, I was the press secretary for the campaign that came closer than anyone else ever has to knocking off Bernie in a race - we held him under 50% of the vote, but still lost by about 3%. My candidate was a liberal Republican, and Bernie was a two-term incumbent Congressman who hadn't yet perfected his shtick, not to mention Vermont hadn't gone as left as it is today.

Today, I love him. But back then, I didn't think he was a good representative for our state. With only one Congressman, I believed it was important to have someone who could work collaboratively with others to get things done that Vermont needed. And I also thought it was important to have someone with a robust constituent services operation, since there was no one else in the House for anyone in the entire state to turn to. Bernie's point of view was that it was impossible for a lone Congressman (alone in his state delegation, and alone as the only Independent) to get anything done, so his job was to go to Washington and shake things up as much as possible. People in Vermont loved it at first - even right wing backwoodsman, who viewed sending Bernie to DC as their "F U" to Congress.

We knew we couldn't win on personality. My candidate was kind of unknown, and who were we to tell people they shouldn't like the guy? So we ran the least personality-drive, most issues-driven campaign you could ever imagine. While Bernie wanted to talk about the multi-national corporations, and big businesses, and demolition of the working class -- all the things that are rightfully fueling his Presidential bid today -- we talked about the most mundane, Vermont-centric stuff you can imagine. And it worked. I feel like if we had another week, we could have beaten him.

At the time we lost, I was crushed. But today I'm so happy we lost, because I have become more liberal and because I've come to recognize Bernie (maybe along with Ralph Nader) as the most prominent, authentic populist voice of the last quarter-century. Look at his views on the military. Even as he's voted against every war, he's worked tirelessly to advance veterans' benefits - the exact opposite of so many who rush our troops into combat and then forget about them when they bear the scars of battle. I admire that so much.

And I also feel some pride that we made Bernie become a better Congressman - he saw how close he came to defeat, and he refocused, making sure that he took care of his constituents' needs before advancing his national agenda. He realized he had to have allies and began to work with the Democratic caucus, even while maintaining his Independent status.

It is going to be great sport to watch him in the very few primary debates that I expect Hillary will deign participate in. But I really don't think he has any chance whatsoever. He's 74. He's loud and abrasive. Nobody knows who he is. And, sadly, the views he espouses are very out of line with the direction America is heading. This is a victory lap before heading into the sunset, not the start of something. But I will be cheering him every step of the way.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an observation from business and politics: people who believe and know their subject are better and more convincing than people who go in with notes and preconceived notions of what people want to hear. This is true even when their audience does not necessarily agree with the person on every single item, they tend to favor the person whom they trust more in knowledge and as a person. The above reads a little like he was a populist in VT, but it also sounds to me like he's not about pressing buttons. I think if someone hears Bernie, and they hear Hillary, with an open mind, most often (50+%) they will pick Bernie. The question is how many will get that chance and how many will be open minded. He does seem to have a history of upsets though. IIRC he first got into politics as mayor of a small town, those are the people who intrigue me the most, they get involved because they are civically active trying to improve things around them. It also sounds to me like VT is maybe more like our democracy was envisioned, smaller and more intimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an observation from business and politics: people who believe and know their subject are better and more convincing than people who go in with notes and preconceived notions of what people want to hear. This is true even when their audience does not necessarily agree with the person on every single item, they tend to favor the person whom they trust more in knowledge and as a person. The above reads a little like he was a populist in VT, but it also sounds to me like he's not about pressing buttons. I think if someone hears Bernie, and they hear Hillary, with an open mind, most often (50+%) they will pick Bernie. The question is how many will get that chance and how many will be open minded. He does seem to have a history of upsets though. IIRC he first got into politics as mayor of a small town, those are the people who intrigue me the most, they get involved because they are civically active trying to improve things around them. It also sounds to me like VT is maybe more like our democracy was envisioned, smaller and more intimate.

The polls consistently show that most of the people who will be deciding between these two (Democrats) do not believe that Hillary is as dishonest as you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an observation from business and politics: people who believe and know their subject are better and more convincing than people who go in with notes and preconceived notions of what people want to hear. This is true even when their audience does not necessarily agree with the person on every single item, they tend to favor the person whom they trust more in knowledge and as a person. The above reads a little like he was a populist in VT, but it also sounds to me like he's not about pressing buttons. I think if someone hears Bernie, and they hear Hillary, with an open mind, most often (50+%) they will pick Bernie. The question is how many will get that chance and how many will be open minded. He does seem to have a history of upsets though. IIRC he first got into politics as mayor of a small town, those are the people who intrigue me the most, they get involved because they are civically active trying to improve things around them. It also sounds to me like VT is maybe more like our democracy was envisioned, smaller and more intimate.

The polls consistently show....

Did you even read what he wrote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an observation from business and politics: people who believe and know their subject are better and more convincing than people who go in with notes and preconceived notions of what people want to hear. This is true even when their audience does not necessarily agree with the person on every single item, they tend to favor the person whom they trust more in knowledge and as a person. The above reads a little like he was a populist in VT, but it also sounds to me like he's not about pressing buttons. I think if someone hears Bernie, and they hear Hillary, with an open mind, most often (50+%) they will pick Bernie. The question is how many will get that chance and how many will be open minded. He does seem to have a history of upsets though. IIRC he first got into politics as mayor of a small town, those are the people who intrigue me the most, they get involved because they are civically active trying to improve things around them. It also sounds to me like VT is maybe more like our democracy was envisioned, smaller and more intimate.

The polls consistently show....

Did you even read what he wrote?

I did. But his implication is that people will find Bernie to be honest, and Hillary to be less than honest. They don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, Bernie's the real deal. He's been talking about the exact same issues for almost 40 years. His first electoral victory was for Mayor of Burlington - a small town, but the biggest one in Vermont - when he beat the long-time Democratic incumbent (a Richard Daley type) by 12 votes in a 4-way race. It was such a shock that the rumor forever after was that some of the incumbent Mayor's staff had voted for Bernie as a joke.

It was under him that Burlington changed from a small town to the "Seattle of New England" or whatever you want to call it - a progressive, educated, cool place.

There is not a single question that will throw him, because he believes completely in his worldview, and isn't beholden to any interest group that will make him hold his tongue. He's the kind of politician who doesn't really care what you think, he's there to tell you what he thinks. Of course, that's also his greatest weakness. He can't compromise and his belief that he alone is right and holds the moral high ground in every argument can get tiresome. But it should make for great political theater while his campaign lasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie reminds me a little of Ron Paul with how loyal his followers are.Clearly they are worlds apart in how they view things but they are the type of candidate who draws interest and say and believe things the usual suspects rarely say which is very refreshing.

I guess my hope is one day to have a President just be able to tell it like it is but in this political climate not a chance in hell that ever happens in my lifetime.

Edited by tom22406

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an observation from business and politics: people who believe and know their subject are better and more convincing than people who go in with notes and preconceived notions of what people want to hear. This is true even when their audience does not necessarily agree with the person on every single item, they tend to favor the person whom they trust more in knowledge and as a person. The above reads a little like he was a populist in VT, but it also sounds to me like he's not about pressing buttons. I think if someone hears Bernie, and they hear Hillary, with an open mind, most often (50+%) they will pick Bernie. The question is how many will get that chance and how many will be open minded. He does seem to have a history of upsets though. IIRC he first got into politics as mayor of a small town, those are the people who intrigue me the most, they get involved because they are civically active trying to improve things around them. It also sounds to me like VT is maybe more like our democracy was envisioned, smaller and more intimate.

The polls consistently show....

Did you even read what he wrote?

I did. But his implication is that people will find Bernie to be honest, and Hillary to be less than honest. They don't.
Really? I saw a poll that showed 4 out of 10 democrats wouldn't describe her as honest and 6 out of 10 independents wouldn't. Edited by NCCommish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses guys. As funny as it sounds, as an individual seeking statelessness, I think I'll vote for a socialist, even funnier I think is that it is during an election where Ron Paul's son is running... Foreign policy is just to important an issue to overlook. Mainly I think because it effects people who don't have a voice in our system. Godspeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many times when politics comes up in conversation it's in the context that all politicians are lying, crooked, corrupt, hypocrits who will say anything to get elected/re-elected. The idea of an honest politician who actually believes in something with enough conviction to try and see it through at all costs is basically a myth.

Yet now we have that. A guy who is very clear about what he wants and you're either onboard with it or not, but he's not going to change it to get your vote.

And the vast majority will probably not be able to tell you his name 2 years from now, while they're busy complaining about all the scandalous, lying politicians out there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many times when politics comes up in conversation it's in the context that all politicians are lying, crooked, corrupt, hypocrits who will say anything to get elected/re-elected. The idea of an honest politician who actually believes in something with enough conviction to try and see it through at all costs is basically a myth.

Yet now we have that. A guy who is very clear about what he wants and you're either onboard with it or not, but he's not going to change it to get your vote.

And the vast majority will probably not be able to tell you his name 2 years from now, while they're busy complaining about all the scandalous, lying politicians out there.

If his name is on the ballot here in SC during primaries I'll vote for him because of the things you mention. It helps a lot that I agree with him on what the government's role in healthcare should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an observation from business and politics: people who believe and know their subject are better and more convincing than people who go in with notes and preconceived notions of what people want to hear. This is true even when their audience does not necessarily agree with the person on every single item, they tend to favor the person whom they trust more in knowledge and as a person. The above reads a little like he was a populist in VT, but it also sounds to me like he's not about pressing buttons. I think if someone hears Bernie, and they hear Hillary, with an open mind, most often (50+%) they will pick Bernie. The question is how many will get that chance and how many will be open minded. He does seem to have a history of upsets though. IIRC he first got into politics as mayor of a small town, those are the people who intrigue me the most, they get involved because they are civically active trying to improve things around them. It also sounds to me like VT is maybe more like our democracy was envisioned, smaller and more intimate.

The polls consistently show....

Did you even read what he wrote?

I did. But his implication is that people will find Bernie to be honest, and Hillary to be less than honest. They don't.
Really? I saw a poll that showed 4 out of 10 democrats wouldn't describe her as honest and 6 out of 10 independents wouldn't.
There are several in this vein. They're as easy to find as the "pro Hillary" ones yet they don't ever seem to make it to the threads of footballguys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The statement below is anathema to a lot of folks:

“Tax capital gains and dividends the same as work. Taxing capital gains and dividends the same way that we tax work would raise more than $500 billion over the next decade. The top marginal income tax for working is 39.6 percent, but the top tax rate on corporate dividends and capital gains is only 20.”

Why should capital gains and employment income be taxed differently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The statement below is anathema to a lot of folks:

“Tax capital gains and dividends the same as work. Taxing capital gains and dividends the same way that we tax work would raise more than $500 billion over the next decade. The top marginal income tax for working is 39.6 percent, but the top tax rate on corporate dividends and capital gains is only 20.”

Why should capital gains and employment income be taxed differently?

Truthfully?

Because those with all the money/resources/power spend enough to gain benefits from the laws.

And when debated they will talk about abstract jobs/investments/creators (which is a total fairy tale).

Edited by BigSteelThrill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The statement below is anathema to a lot of folks:

“Tax capital gains and dividends the same as work. Taxing capital gains and dividends the same way that we tax work would raise more than $500 billion over the next decade. The top marginal income tax for working is 39.6 percent, but the top tax rate on corporate dividends and capital gains is only 20.”

Why should capital gains and employment income be taxed differently?

Truthfully?

Because those with all the money/resources/power spend enough to gain benefits from the laws.

And when debated they will talk about abstract jobs/investments/creators (which is a total fairy tale).

Remove capital gains, and more millionaire investors will put their money overseas, in countries that welcome their investments. How will that help us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The statement below is anathema to a lot of folks:

“Tax capital gains and dividends the same as work. Taxing capital gains and dividends the same way that we tax work would raise more than $500 billion over the next decade. The top marginal income tax for working is 39.6 percent, but the top tax rate on corporate dividends and capital gains is only 20.”

Why should capital gains and employment income be taxed differently?

Truthfully?

Because those with all the money/resources/power spend enough to gain benefits from the laws.

And when debated they will talk about abstract jobs/investments/creators (which is a total fairy tale).

Remove capital gains, and more millionaire investors will put their money overseas, in countries that welcome their investments. How will that help us?

Someone will fill their spots. No problem. We intake tons of rich from around the world who are dieing to do business here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The statement below is anathema to a lot of folks:

“Tax capital gains and dividends the same as work. Taxing capital gains and dividends the same way that we tax work would raise more than $500 billion over the next decade. The top marginal income tax for working is 39.6 percent, but the top tax rate on corporate dividends and capital gains is only 20.”

Why should capital gains and employment income be taxed differently?

Truthfully?

Because those with all the money/resources/power spend enough to gain benefits from the laws.

And when debated they will talk about abstract jobs/investments/creators (which is a total fairy tale).

Remove capital gains, and more millionaire investors will put their money overseas, in countries that welcome their investments. How will that help us?

Someone will fill their spots. No problem. We intake tons of rich from around the world who are dieing to do business here.

:lol:

It doesn't quite work that way. That's a way over simplified position that would have terrible ramifications if people who were actually decision makers actually thought this was the case. Just terrible.

Right on cue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - it just doesn't work that way BST. I know, in a perfect world, it would. But it doesn't. I'm not trying to dig on you over it, but that's a terrible mindset. You're understanding of macro economics is extremely flawed and it's likely because you're trying to back into a position based on what your favorite candidate believes. If you ran a billion dollar company and alienated your top 10 investors by taxing/feeing them to death, you don't just "get 10 more rich investors. No problem!" Sorry, but this is not a sharp move. I don't mean to be rude about your point, but you've tried to way over simplify it to fit some narrative. Things don't work that way at that level just because Bernie Sanders and BST say they do. You could argue, maybe they should work that way, but it's not grounded in reality.

Yeah who would want to invest in the biggest consumer market on earth? Try investing in Greece. Many, many big time investors have said taxes is the last issue they worry about. For instance Warren Buffet. Mark Cuban. I could go on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - it just doesn't work that way BST. I know, in a perfect world, it would. But it doesn't. I'm not trying to dig on you over it, but that's a terrible mindset. You're understanding of macro economics is extremely flawed and it's likely because you're trying to back into a position based on what your favorite candidate believes. If you ran a billion dollar company and alienated your top 10 investors by taxing/feeing them to death, you don't just "get 10 more rich investors. No problem!" Sorry, but this is not a sharp move. I don't mean to be rude about your point, but you've tried to way over simplify it to fit some narrative. Things don't work that way at that level just because Bernie Sanders and BST say they do. You could argue, maybe they should work that way, but it's not grounded in reality.

Yeah who would want to invest in the biggest consumer market on earth? Try investing in Greece. Many, many big time investors have said taxes is the last issue they worry about. For instance Warren Buffet. Mark Cuban. I could go on.

Maybe they don't, NC. but that's a pretty high level. I work with people who buy and/or develop small shopping centers and single tenant investments- guys that have 4 or 5 million to spend. You raise capital gain taxes and they will go elsewhere, I guarantee it. Or they'll simply stop investing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or they'll simply stop investing.

People would decide to make no money investing rather than just make slightly less money investing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or they'll simply stop investing.

People would decide to make no money investing rather than just make slightly less money investing?

Unfortunately, that's been my experience since 2008. The money stays in the bank, and they simply wait for things to get better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - it just doesn't work that way BST. I know, in a perfect world, it would. But it doesn't. I'm not trying to dig on you over it, but that's a terrible mindset. You're understanding of macro economics is extremely flawed and it's likely because you're trying to back into a position based on what your favorite candidate believes. If you ran a billion dollar company and alienated your top 10 investors by taxing/feeing them to death, you don't just "get 10 more rich investors. No problem!" Sorry, but this is not a sharp move. I don't mean to be rude about your point, but you've tried to way over simplify it to fit some narrative. Things don't work that way at that level just because Bernie Sanders and BST say they do. You could argue, maybe they should work that way, but it's not grounded in reality.

Yeah who would want to invest in the biggest consumer market on earth? Try investing in Greece. Many, many big time investors have said taxes is the last issue they worry about. For instance Warren Buffet. Mark Cuban. I could go on.

Maybe they don't, NC. but that's a pretty high level. I work with people who buy and/or develop small shopping centers and single tenant investments- guys that have 4 or 5 million to spend. You raise capital gain taxes and they will go elsewhere, I guarantee it. Or they'll simply stop investing.
When it comes to taxes as a percentage of GDP we are 25% below the OECD average. Our corporate effective rate is nearly 70% lower than the rest of the G8 which average around 22% to our 13%. And yet there are still businesses headquartered and inveatorsnstill invest in these higher tax countries. Why? Edited by NCCommish
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We live in an anecdotal society

Touche. Nice.

You're right, of course, it's all I got. The rest is theory. Either you believe that we can raise these taxes and it won't hurt investment, or you believe that it WILL hurt investment. What you believe in these cases is probably based on your political philosophy. Personally, I don't know. I've always believed that heavier taxation is bad for business, and every investor I work with believes that too. But on the other hand, in the past few decades, when taxes have gone up the economy has generally improved, and when taxes have been lowered (as in 2001) there was no effect or things were worse. So who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - it just doesn't work that way BST. I know, in a perfect world, it would. But it doesn't. I'm not trying to dig on you over it, but that's a terrible mindset. You're understanding of macro economics is extremely flawed and it's likely because you're trying to back into a position based on what your favorite candidate believes. If you ran a billion dollar company and alienated your top 10 investors by taxing/feeing them to death, you don't just "get 10 more rich investors. No problem!" Sorry, but this is not a sharp move. I don't mean to be rude about your point, but you've tried to way over simplify it to fit some narrative. Things don't work that way at that level just because Bernie Sanders and BST say they do. You could argue, maybe they should work that way, but it's not grounded in reality.

Yeah who would want to invest in the biggest consumer market on earth? Try investing in Greece. Many, many big time investors have said taxes is the last issue they worry about. For instance Warren Buffet. Mark Cuban. I could go on.

Maybe they don't, NC. but that's a pretty high level. I work with people who buy and/or develop small shopping centers and single tenant investments- guys that have 4 or 5 million to spend. You raise capital gain taxes and they will go elsewhere, I guarantee it. Or they'll simply stop investing.
When it comes to taxes as a percentage of GDP we are 25% below the OECD average. Our corporate effective rate is nearly 70% lower than the rest of the G8 which average around 22% to our 13%. And yet there are still businesses headquartered and inveatorsnstill invest in these higher tax countries. Why?

I know. Because people still want to be here anyway. But as much as that argues for your POV, I could just as easily twist it around and suggest that if we had an even LOWER effective corporate tax rate, there would be even MORE investors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - it just doesn't work that way BST. I know, in a perfect world, it would. But it doesn't. I'm not trying to dig on you over it, but that's a terrible mindset. You're understanding of macro economics is extremely flawed and it's likely because you're trying to back into a position based on what your favorite candidate believes. If you ran a billion dollar company and alienated your top 10 investors by taxing/feeing them to death, you don't just "get 10 more rich investors. No problem!" Sorry, but this is not a sharp move. I don't mean to be rude about your point, but you've tried to way over simplify it to fit some narrative. Things don't work that way at that level just because Bernie Sanders and BST say they do. You could argue, maybe they should work that way, but it's not grounded in reality.

Yeah who would want to invest in the biggest consumer market on earth? Try investing in Greece. Many, many big time investors have said taxes is the last issue they worry about. For instance Warren Buffet. Mark Cuban. I could go on.

Maybe they don't, NC. but that's a pretty high level. I work with people who buy and/or develop small shopping centers and single tenant investments- guys that have 4 or 5 million to spend. You raise capital gain taxes and they will go elsewhere, I guarantee it. Or they'll simply stop investing.
When it comes to taxes as a percentage of GDP we are 25% below the OECD average. Our corporate effective rate is nearly 70% lower than the rest of the G8 which average around 22% to our 13%. And yet there are still businesses headquartered and inveatorsnstill invest in these higher tax countries. Why?

I know. Because people still want to be here anyway. But as much as that argues for your POV, I could just as easily twist it around and suggest that if we had an even LOWER effective corporate tax rate, there would be even MORE investors.

Really? History suggests we'd just be broke or are you intending the public to take on the entire tax burden? Looking for an 80% rate are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - it just doesn't work that way BST. I know, in a perfect world, it would. But it doesn't. I'm not trying to dig on you over it, but that's a terrible mindset. You're understanding of macro economics is extremely flawed and it's likely because you're trying to back into a position based on what your favorite candidate believes. If you ran a billion dollar company and alienated your top 10 investors by taxing/feeing them to death, you don't just "get 10 more rich investors. No problem!" Sorry, but this is not a sharp move. I don't mean to be rude about your point, but you've tried to way over simplify it to fit some narrative. Things don't work that way at that level just because Bernie Sanders and BST say they do. You could argue, maybe they should work that way, but it's not grounded in reality.

Yeah who would want to invest in the biggest consumer market on earth? Try investing in Greece. Many, many big time investors have said taxes is the last issue they worry about. For instance Warren Buffet. Mark Cuban. I could go on.

Maybe they don't, NC. but that's a pretty high level. I work with people who buy and/or develop small shopping centers and single tenant investments- guys that have 4 or 5 million to spend. You raise capital gain taxes and they will go elsewhere, I guarantee it. Or they'll simply stop investing.
When it comes to taxes as a percentage of GDP we are 25% below the OECD average. Our corporate effective rate is nearly 70% lower than the rest of the G8 which average around 22% to our 13%. And yet there are still businesses headquartered and inveatorsnstill invest in these higher tax countries. Why?

I know. Because people still want to be here anyway. But as much as that argues for your POV, I could just as easily twist it around and suggest that if we had an even LOWER effective corporate tax rate, there would be even MORE investors.

Really? History suggests we'd just be broke or are you intending the public to take on the entire tax burden? Looking for an 80% rate are you?

There's a lot of smart people who agree with you on this. There's also a lot of smart people who disagree. I'm just not sure, honestly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - it just doesn't work that way BST. I know, in a perfect world, it would. But it doesn't. I'm not trying to dig on you over it, but that's a terrible mindset. You're understanding of macro economics is extremely flawed and it's likely because you're trying to back into a position based on what your favorite candidate believes. If you ran a billion dollar company and alienated your top 10 investors by taxing/feeing them to death, you don't just "get 10 more rich investors. No problem!" Sorry, but this is not a sharp move. I don't mean to be rude about your point, but you've tried to way over simplify it to fit some narrative. Things don't work that way at that level just because Bernie Sanders and BST say they do. You could argue, maybe they should work that way, but it's not grounded in reality.

Yeah who would want to invest in the biggest consumer market on earth? Try investing in Greece. Many, many big time investors have said taxes is the last issue they worry about. For instance Warren Buffet. Mark Cuban. I could go on.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget investors for a second, how much money could we raise just by closing tax loopholes that allow big corporations to rake in billions of dollars in income while paying, literally, zero taxes. It's pretty ridiculous that GE and Google combine to pay $0 in taxes every year.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/top-10-corporate-tax-avoiders

Edited by FreeBaGeL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - it just doesn't work that way BST. I know, in a perfect world, it would. But it doesn't. I'm not trying to dig on you over it, but that's a terrible mindset. You're understanding of macro economics is extremely flawed and it's likely because you're trying to back into a position based on what your favorite candidate believes. If you ran a billion dollar company and alienated your top 10 investors by taxing/feeing them to death, you don't just "get 10 more rich investors. No problem!" Sorry, but this is not a sharp move. I don't mean to be rude about your point, but you've tried to way over simplify it to fit some narrative. Things don't work that way at that level just because Bernie Sanders and BST say they do. You could argue, maybe they should work that way, but it's not grounded in reality.

Yeah who would want to invest in the biggest consumer market on earth? Try investing in Greece. Many, many big time investors have said taxes is the last issue they worry about. For instance Warren Buffet. Mark Cuban. I could go on.

Maybe they don't, NC. but that's a pretty high level. I work with people who buy and/or develop small shopping centers and single tenant investments- guys that have 4 or 5 million to spend. You raise capital gain taxes and they will go elsewhere, I guarantee it. Or they'll simply stop investing.

NC - you also picked the worst example you could in Greece to make your point. There are many others that fall in between that such a plan would put us behind. You don't just "get more" - that vantage point is extremely naive. There's plenty of opportunity even now to invest, if more wanted in, we've the room for them. Buffett and Cuban are Billionaires - again, another extreme example at the far other end. You risk alienation investors with 100s of thousands to a million or two with removal of capital gains. To qualify for capital gains, there are incentives to keeping your money in the market as well and not walking away. I'm sorry, but "we'll just get more" is a an extremely sophomoric outlook. Tax reform is needed before raising taxes altogether. The billionaires might not care how much they pay in taxes, but there are middle class people that this could severely damage as well.

But we were EXACTLY talking about Millionaires as per Tims post. Nice switch-a-roo.

The statement below is anathema to a lot of folks:

“Tax capital gains and dividends the same as work. Taxing capital gains and dividends the same way that we tax work would raise more than $500 billion over the next decade. The top marginal income tax for working is 39.6 percent, but the top tax rate on corporate dividends and capital gains is only 20.”

Why should capital gains and employment income be taxed differently?

Truthfully?

Because those with all the money/resources/power spend enough to gain benefits from the laws.

And when debated they will talk about abstract jobs/investments/creators (which is a total fairy tale).

Remove capital gains, and more millionaire investors will put their money overseas, in countries that welcome their investments. How will that help us?

Someone will fill their spots. No problem. We intake tons of rich from around the world who are dieing to do business here.

These people aren't going to quit trying and they aren't going to leave America (without even more to fill the ranks). That's conservatives scare tactics, nothing more.

Edited by BigSteelThrill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget investors for a second, how much money could we raise just by closing tax loopholes that allow big corporations to rake in billions of dollars in income while paying, literally, zero taxes. It's pretty ridiculous that GE and Google combine to pay $0 in taxes every year.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/top-10-corporate-tax-avoiders

Or the old Carried Interest loophole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.