What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being. (10 Viewers)

Don't Noonan said:
Question to all you Sanders supporters.  How much do you feel those in the top tax bracket should be paying in taxes?  Currently the Federal taxes for anything over $415k for single and $467k for joint is 39.6%.  Add in state taxes and additional obamacare taxes and it is closer to 50%.  

45% of people don't pay any federal taxes at all, in fact many get a credit.  Where is the incentive to work hard if you plan on losing 75 cents on every dollar to taxes?   In your eyes what percentage  total should the wealthy pay in taxes?   Thanks
Click to expand...
It doesn't really matter.  You can set the number at whatever you want.  With all the loopholes it just looks good on paper.  Never been a fan of "income tax"...it's an antiquated approach IMO.  

I'll disagree that there is no incentive to "work hard".  The more you make, the more loopholes come into play.  There's plenty of incentive to make money.  Looking at a progressive income tax scale and making a conclusion that there is no incentive to work hard (and make as much money as possible) is pretty much wrong on every level.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
pantagrapher said:
I'm not a Sanders supporter, but I think the top marginal income tax rate should be at least 50%.
Click to expand...
If you get free health care and free education up to master level thrown in (if you can get in to the university, obviously) there are precedents for such rates elsewhere in the world

 
Don't Noonan said:
Question to all you Sanders supporters.  How much do you feel those in the top tax bracket should be paying in taxes?  Currently the Federal taxes for anything over $415k for single and $467k for joint is 39.6%.  Add in state taxes and additional obamacare taxes and it is closer to 50%.  

45% of people don't pay any federal taxes at all, in fact many get a credit.  Where is the incentive to work hard if you plan on losing 75 cents on every dollar to taxes?   In your eyes what percentage  total should the wealthy pay in taxes?   Thanks
Click to expand...
You think folks making $10M a year are going to work less hard because we raise taxes 10% on every dollar made after say $7,000,001?  

 
tommyGunZ said:
You think folks making $10M a year are going to work less hard because we raise taxes 10% on every dollar made after say $7,000,001?  
Click to expand...
I can't speak for them but it would certainly affect me.  I believe this would reduce the amount of jobs as well, hurting the middle class.

 
Don't Noonan said:
Question to all you Sanders supporters.  How much do you feel those in the top tax bracket should be paying in taxes?  Currently the Federal taxes for anything over $415k for single and $467k for joint is 39.6%.  Add in state taxes and additional obamacare taxes and it is closer to 50%.  

45% of people don't pay any federal taxes at all, in fact many get a credit.  Where is the incentive to work hard if you plan on losing 75 cents on every dollar to taxes?   In your eyes what percentage  total should the wealthy pay in taxes?   Thanks
Click to expand...
Federal income taxes.  And of course, that discounts federal payroll taxes, which are only taken out as a result of income.

The fact is, despite the progressive tax structure at the federal level, as the rich get richer they pay a significantly lower effective tax rate.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/06/income.png&w=1484

There's also the issue of other taxes - the working poor pay a disproportionate percentage of their income toward sales taxes and other regressive taxes at the State level.  Someone who pays $0 in federal income taxes probably pays 9% of income across the board in sales tax alone, as that person doesn't really have the ability to save income while still surviving.  Also paying 6.2% FICA taxes for all income, as that person is making less than $100,000.00 per year.

The very rich, by contrast, pay much less of their incomes in sales tax; if you earn $62m a year and don't use it all to buy taxable goods, the rest doesn't get sales taxed.  Their earnings over $100,000.00 get an extra 6.2% bump from lack of FICA but a loss of .9% of additional Medicare payments on income over $200,000.00.

Personally, I think it's reasonable to bump the SS cap up to $200,000.00, then for income above that amount add in the 5.3% difference gained by the dropoff of SS taxes and additional medicare taxes.  So, top rate of 44.9% using current brackets.  But I'm also not opposed to the Sanders tax bracket plan, or at least that plan with some tweaking.  I think the income brackets have become outdated - the fact that numbers less than $500,000 are considered the "top income bracket" just seems a little silly given current earnings in this country. I'd probably prefer that the 39% bracket move up to $1m. And under Sanders' plan, anyone earning less than $500k a year will pay less in taxes than currently.

 
From the sheer coincidence file. It seems NYC is having a lot of voter issues. Polls closed, machines malfunctioning, etc. The epicenter? Brooklyn.

 
TobiasFunke said:
There's a picture of her right next to her name at the top of the article, but sure, whatever.

Anyway can you tell me more about your critique?  What are the positions not supported by research?  Genuine question- I obviously don't have time to research them all so I'm curious.
Click to expand...
Valid point, I suppose we should know who we are talking about. I find her personal list of accomplishments very interesting for someone that "started out liking Bernie":

  • Defending witnesses before the SEC in connection with various investigations involving credit default swaps, CDOs and CLOs.
  • Defending several hedge funds and a health care company in the Tribune fraudulent conveyance actions.
  • Defending several hedge funds in the Lyondell fraudulent conveyance actions.
  • Defending a holding company and individual against claims for conspiracy to commit fraud in connection with an alleged “pump and dump” market manipulation scheme on London and German stock exchanges.
  • Prosecuting claims on behalf of a foreign investment company in connection with losses sustained due to unauthorized trading and fraud by former consultant.
  • Representing structured products company in connection with corporate governance claims against a fund and its parent.
  • Defending publicly traded domestic company against wage and hour class action in New York state court.
  • Defeated derivative claims brought by former shareholder and director against technology company and its directors, after conducting internal investigation and advising special committee formed by Board of Directors.
  • On behalf of a credit derivative products company, obtained dismissal of several claims filed by Swiss bank and obtained favorable settlement.
  • On behalf of large private commercial real estate company, obtained favorable business resolution based on potential claims against foreign investment bank, without litigation.
  • Advised hedge fund in connection with investigation of Ponzi scheme and corporate governance issues.
  • Defeated securities fraud class action brought against foreign holding company and individual in District of Massachusetts.
  • Defeated market manipulation class action brought against foreign holding company and individual directors in Southern District of New York.
  • Defeated antitrust and RICO class actions claims brought against large domestic insurance company.
  • Defeated direct and derivative claims brought against domestic company and individual directors for breach of fiduciary duty in Delaware Chancery Court and obtained sanctions against plaintiff.
  • Won theft of trade secrets action in Northern District of California and obtained sanctions against defendant.
  • Defeated claims brought in arbitration brought by investor against foreign investment bank in connection with losses in fund.
  • On behalf of distributor, obtained favorable business resolution stopping anti-competitive conduct of manufacturer, without litigation.

PUBLIC SERVICE


  • Member of the Board of Directors of Community-Word Project
Click to expand...
That's quite a list. Looks like she's always looking out for the little guy. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Seems pretty obvious, tommy.  Why work hard for that next $10 million if it's just going to get taxed at 54%?  I can just imagine the horrifying exodus of hedge fund managers throwing in the towel early and heading out to the country club instead of spending that extra few hours a week manipulating markets on behalf of their already ultra-rich clients.  How will our economy, nay our very nation, endure such hardship?

 
NCCommish said:
From the sheer coincidence file. It seems NYC is having a lot of voter issues. Polls closed, machines malfunctioning, etc. The epicenter? Brooklyn.
Click to expand...
My wife and I, two coworkers and a few friends all voted in Brooklyn without incident.  That spans several types of neighborhoods from mostly African American (my hood) to the filthy rich white hood. The ballots are the SAT color in the circle kind that then get fed into a scanner.  There were at least 10 scanners on hand and all were functional.  

Not sure what that means.  Not trying to contradict, just reporting.  

 
Henry Ford said:
Federal income taxes.  And of course, that discounts federal payroll taxes, which are only taken out as a result of income.

The fact is, despite the progressive tax structure at the federal level, as the rich get richer they pay a significantly lower effective tax rate.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/06/income.png&w=1484

There's also the issue of other taxes - the working poor pay a disproportionate percentage of their income toward sales taxes and other regressive taxes at the State level.  Someone who pays $0 in federal income taxes probably pays 9% of income across the board in sales tax alone, as that person doesn't really have the ability to save income while still surviving.  Also paying 6.2% FICA taxes for all income, as that person is making less than $100,000.00 per year.

The very rich, by contrast, pay much less of their incomes in sales tax; if you earn $62m a year and don't use it all to buy taxable goods, the rest doesn't get sales taxed.  Their earnings over $100,000.00 get an extra 6.2% bump from lack of FICA but a loss of .9% of additional Medicare payments on income over $200,000.00.

Personally, I think it's reasonable to bump the SS cap up to $200,000.00, then for income above that amount add in the 5.3% difference gained by the dropoff of SS taxes and additional medicare taxes.  So, top rate of 44.9% using current brackets.  But I'm also not opposed to the Sanders tax bracket plan, or at least that plan with some tweaking.  I think the income brackets have become outdated - the fact that numbers less than $500,000 are considered the "top income bracket" just seems a little silly given current earnings in this country. I'd probably prefer that the 39% bracket move up to $1m. And under Sanders' plan, anyone earning less than $500k a year will pay less in taxes than currently.
Click to expand...
Everyone pays sales tax and to increase the social security taxed income level is basically just another tax for those making over $100k.  Unless they somehow get more money from social security it is a terrible idea.  

 
Nick Vermeil said:
My wife and I, two coworkers and a few friends all voted in Brooklyn without incident.  That spans several types of neighborhoods from mostly African American (my hood) to the filthy rich white hood. The ballots are the SAT color in the circle kind that then get fed into a scanner.  There were at least 10 scanners on hand and all were functional.  

Not sure what that means.  Not trying to contradict, just reporting.  
Click to expand...
Glad to hear it.

 
Don't Noonan said:
Everyone pays sales tax and to increase the social security taxed income level is basically just another tax for those making over $100k.  Unless they somehow get more money from social security it is a terrible idea.  
Click to expand...
Yes.  Yes, they do.  But we are talking about effective tax rates and the effect of various taxes on a person's effective tax rate. 

 
Nick Vermeil said:
My wife and I, two coworkers and a few friends all voted in Brooklyn without incident.  That spans several types of neighborhoods from mostly African American (my hood) to the filthy rich white hood. The ballots are the SAT color in the circle kind that then get fed into a scanner.  There were at least 10 scanners on hand and all were functional.  

Not sure what that means.  Not trying to contradict, just reporting.  
Click to expand...
Glad it went well for you always appreciate local sourced FBG filling us in on their experience. And before we go to far I am just tweaking the Hillary folks I'm not going Alex Jones here. I was pointing out the issues being reported by people to election officials because we are talking a lot of votes. And not just for Bernie but for anyone those folks want to vote for. This is no longer a Florida thing we can point and laugh at. It is becoming systemic and it is a serious threat to democracy.

 
Henry Ford said:
Federal income taxes.  And of course, that discounts federal payroll taxes, which are only taken out as a result of income.

The fact is, despite the progressive tax structure at the federal level, as the rich get richer they pay a significantly lower effective tax rate.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/06/income.png&w=1484

There's also the issue of other taxes - the working poor pay a disproportionate percentage of their income toward sales taxes and other regressive taxes at the State level.  Someone who pays $0 in federal income taxes probably pays 9% of income across the board in sales tax alone, as that person doesn't really have the ability to save income while still surviving.  Also paying 6.2% FICA taxes for all income, as that person is making less than $100,000.00 per year.

The very rich, by contrast, pay much less of their incomes in sales tax; if you earn $62m a year and don't use it all to buy taxable goods, the rest doesn't get sales taxed.  Their earnings over $100,000.00 get an extra 6.2% bump from lack of FICA but a loss of .9% of additional Medicare payments on income over $200,000.00.

Personally, I think it's reasonable to bump the SS cap up to $200,000.00, then for income above that amount add in the 5.3% difference gained by the dropoff of SS taxes and additional medicare taxes.  So, top rate of 44.9% using current brackets.  But I'm also not opposed to the Sanders tax bracket plan, or at least that plan with some tweaking.  I think the income brackets have become outdated - the fact that numbers less than $500,000 are considered the "top income bracket" just seems a little silly given current earnings in this country. I'd probably prefer that the 39% bracket move up to $1m. And under Sanders' plan, anyone earning less than $500k a year will pay less in taxes than currently.
Click to expand...

 
Don't Noonan said:
Thanks.  Didn't see that in prior post. 
Click to expand...
My primary issue with going over the current top rates is that income at $500k shouldn't be taxed as though it's the billionaire class.  There are areas of this country where that is obvious a great living, but it's certainly not generational-wealth-building.

If the brackets can get fixed, I'm all for a 52-55% top bracket over $5m or $10m

 
Henry Ford said:
My primary issue with going over the current top rates is that income at $500k shouldn't be taxed as though it's the billionaire class.  There are areas of this country where that is obvious a great living, but it's certainly not generational-wealth-building.

If the brackets can get fixed, I'm all for a 52-55% top bracket over $5m or $10m
Click to expand...
Yes, stratifying more at the top makes sense. That's where the whole $250K plus argument falls on its face, particularly when that argument comes from the generationally wealthy side. Stop treating decent wage earners like millionaires on one hand and then offering them up as fodder to the lower class on the other hand. 

 
Don't Noonan said:
Statutory, every dollar earned over say $500k ie
Click to expand...
The reason I ask is I want a higher statutory if there are a lot of loopholes and writeoffs which lowers the effective. If there aren't a lot of write offs I would be cool with a lower statutory. See it isn't really a black and white thing. It really depends. And I know that answer is frustrating but it does.

So for me personally and not in consultation with any campaign I would like to see the following:

Your first 20,800 is federal income tax free. Everything above that is taxed as income with very few write offs. I would probably keep the charitable deduction and maybe some deductions for lower income people that would disappear completely say at 200k. In this way we broaden the base significantly. This would allow us to keep rates at the higher income levels about where they are while establishing some relatively low progressive starting point at 20,801 and a new top rate set at a higher level. I would think topping out between 40-45% for income over ten million. This would include all income so hedge fund managers won't like it. I would think we could do something for retirees but we'd have to run the numbers. Also we go back to taxing estates. We could exempt the first million for individuals and two million for couples but above that we go progressive until we max out at the same top level as all other income. And of course capital gains gets some tweaking as well.

This should raise revenues and get a higher percentage of population paying in something.

Forgot to mention that savings account income should be tax free as well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Our voting processes are so ####ed it's insane (see: 5 hour lines in Arizona) and I think that's been amplified to a great degree by social media's explosion and importance in recent years. But it also makes it easy to take anecdotal accounts and turn them into headlines. 

Every election you are going to run into voters who were purged due to inactivity, individuals who were registered incorrectly, and individuals who weren't aware they couldn't vote in a closed primary. It gets cranked up to a 10 immediately due to how our news is conveyed these days. 

I think that any rational Democrat or independent (can't attest to Republicans) believe voting should be a pretty easy process. There's nothing nefarious at play this year because of Clinton vs Sanders. It's just arcane rules and red tape that should be revisited going forward  

 
Trey said:
Our voting processes are so ####ed it's insane (see: 5 hour lines in Arizona) and I think that's been amplified to a great degree by social media's explosion and importance in recent years. But it also makes it easy to take anecdotal accounts and turn them into headlines. 

Every election you are going to run into voters who were purged due to inactivity, individuals who were registered incorrectly, and individuals who weren't aware they couldn't vote in a closed primary. It gets cranked up to a 10 immediately due to how our news is conveyed these days. 

I think that any rational Democrat or independent (can't attest to Republicans) believe voting should be a pretty easy process. There's nothing nefarious at play this year because of Clinton vs Sanders. It's just arcane rules and red tape that should be revisited going forward  
Click to expand...
I keep googling Tribeca voting irregularities and getting nothing.  Ditto with Lenox Hill.  

 
Thought this discussion lays things out pretty well...

micah: Alright, let’s start with the Democrats … what’s going to happen? Rumor has it that America is feeling the Bern.

harry: That’s nationally; if the polls of New York are to be believed, then Hillary Clinton is going to have a very strong night. She’ll win and probably by double digits. In doing so, she’ll probably up her elected delegate lead by 25+ delegates.

clare.malone: And if the polls are wrong, all hell breaks loose. Sí?

micah: Yeah, let’s posit a couple cases …

clare.malone: Bernie Sanders loses, but by only a couple of percentage points. That’s the most likely “bad” scenario for Clinton.

micah: That’s the likely outcome according to the “the-most-annoying-and-ambiguous-outcome-possible-will-happen” theory of the 2016 primaries. And that theory has worked pretty well so far.

natesilver: Yeah, that would be an annoying outcome, in the sense that it would represent a setback for Sanders relative to the delegate targets he needs to hit to overtake Clinton, but he might get pretty favorable press coverage in that scenario.

clare.malone: Not quite Murphy’s law … Sullivan’s Law maybe? Many things will go kinda, sorta wrong, but not all of them.

micah: Malone’s Law.

clare.malone: Coin it.

natesilver: Are you guys just randomly naming faux-Irish bars in Kips Bay? O’Hurleys?

micah: OK, let’s say Bernie wins by 4 points. ####storm, yes?

clare.malone: Yes!

natesilver: A #### tornado. A #### hurricane.

harry: If Bernie wins by 4 percentage points, my @ mentions on Twitter are going to be something else.

clare.malone: I hope he wins just for that. #schadenfreude

micah: It would signal something might be fatally wrong with the Clinton campaign?

harry: In that scenario, I’d say there is something wrong. If you’re Clinton, how can you not win New York? It has a closed primary — only registered Democrats can vote — with a diverse electorate, and you were the state’s U.S. senator for nearly 10 years.

natesilver: Yeah, it would suggest that Sanders was starting to eat into her base. The closed primary thing is a big deal — especially given how strict New York is about changing parties. A Sanders win would imply he was winning over the sorts of voters that he wasn’t winning in other states.

clare.malone: Right. If that’s the scenario, and voters really are turning more and more towards Sanders, Clinton’s got a big ol’ problem, and I’m not quite sure what she would do at that point. “Campaign shake-up,” I believe, would be the phrase on everyone’s lips.

natesilver: But it’s also pretty darn unlikely. In some ways, a Sanders win in New York would be more shocking than Michigan was. Whereas Michigan’s demographics and open-primary status seemed more favorable to Sanders than the polls did, I’m not sure you can say that about New York in a closed primary.

micah: Last scenario: Clinton wins by 15 percentage points.

clare.malone: She drinks a couple boilermakers and goes to bed a happy lady. Because that would do a lot for putting to bed the narrative that Sanders is closing in on her. And while we care a lot about numbers here, perception also matters in the race to a certain extent, especially if voters on the fence for him in states that have yet to vote start to think he has a better and better chance of beating her.

harry: Yeah, I think Clinton will love that. Based on the polling, it looks possible.

natesilver: If Clinton wins by 15 percentage points, she’d gain 35-40 pledged delegates on Sanders.

micah: Would he drop out?

clare.malone: No, I don’t think so. I think he’s going to stay in until June. He’s got the money, so why not? He’s got a message to spread. That’s why he got into the race in the first place.

natesilver: I doubt he’d drop out but it would eliminate some of the pretense of it being a competitive race. Especially because if Clinton does well here in New York, she’s probably also going to win states like Pennsylvania that vote on April 26.
Click to expand...

 
NCCommish said:
From the sheer coincidence file. It seems NYC is having a lot of voter issues. Polls closed, machines malfunctioning, etc. The epicenter? Brooklyn.
Click to expand...
I assume Brooklyn would tend to support Bernie?  If so, more dirty pool by that #### Hillary.

 
NCCommish said:
I'm beginning to think it would be better for everyone to be unaffiliated. I am a registered voter not a registered Democrat or Republican or whatever.
Click to expand...
Of course it would be.  It's not even worth arguing.  We've already established that the parties can nominate people however they want.  They make the rules.  The reason the rules are the way they are is because they benefit the parties to do it that way.  It's not because the rules benefit the electorate.  This way they get to live in their little echo chamber and not face the realities of the electorate.  

 
The Commish said:
Of course it would be.  It's not even worth arguing.  We've already established that the parties can nominate people however they want.  They make the rules.  The reason the rules are the way they are is because they benefit the parties to do it that way.  It's not because the rules benefit the electorate.  This way they get to live in their little echo chamber and not face the realities of the electorate.  
Click to expand...
So what about people like me who like putting work into the political party that we belong to and want to have a vote in our party nominations and also want to prevent the party from being hijacked by people who don't participate?

I'm all for tweaking some rules as times change, but overall the process works.

 
I think Clinton and Sanders supporters would be much better friends if Clinton supporters would just laugh with us a little.  It's not all an attack, it's often just a little poking fun.

 
Utah poll today had Bernie thumping Trump and Clinton tied with him. 

The other Hope tonight is that Trump clears 50% everywhere possible. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did Barack Obama Destroy Abortion Rights By Lying About Codifying Roe v. Wade? (6/26/22 7:24 PST)
Replies
4
Views
538
squistion
squistion
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
465
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
How Hillary Clinton's Toxic "Rape Narrative" Helped To Destroy Roe Vs Wade (5/9/22 5:07 PST)
Replies
22
Views
817
jm192
jm192

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 11 (members: 0, guests: 11)
Top