bernie sanders: regressive

goldberg71b · Jun 24, 2017

Justin-case said:
So you believe we should shorten wage gaps, thanks for clearing that up, sweetheart.

That's not what I said at all. You and everyone go earn what you can. If youre not worth much you won't make much. But that's either on you or god.

Justin-case · Jun 24, 2017

goldberg71b said:
That's not what I said at all. You and everyone go earn what you can. If youre not worth much you won't make much. But that's either on you or god.

Women make seventy nine cents to the dollar compared to their male counter parts. If you truly believe in equality, you would support shortening wage gaps, derp.

UncleBuck · Jun 24, 2017

goldberg71b said:
When's the last time you or anyone else was hired by a poor man? There would be no jobs without wealthy people.

all the time. most contractors aren't wealthy. or retarded. like you are.

Padawanbater2 · Jun 24, 2017

goldberg71b said:
I was working 3 jobs 7 days a week. Until I learned a trade that paid well.

You say this as if it's a badge of honor. Do you think you should have had to work 3 full time jobs just to make ends meet? Why should poor/middle-class people sacrifice their lives so the rich can earn 350x's the average worker? Why would you think that's something to strive for?

Xcoregamerskillz · Jun 24, 2017

goldberg71b said:
Unfortunately in the short term you're right. But it's also the reasons we are going broke. The cost of those socialist policies. But that will end when the national debt tidal wave hits. Because we're not paying for those socialist benefits. We are borrowing to pay for them. When interest rates jump and no one loans us money anymore. You're socialist programs will be the first to go.

Look a social security. When proposed the money was to be kept in a locked box and not spent. Until the liberals figured out how to steal it. The day will come when it's insolvent and that's on the liberals.

We're going broke because Neo-liberal and Neo-conservative reaganites are trying to balance the federal budget on the backs of those who can least afford it, which is something you support.

ttystikk · Jun 24, 2017

goldberg71b said:
And once you've paid taxes on your money it's yours. NO DEATH TAX! Income of money that has been taxed should be less then regular income tax at one rate also.

This is also completely wrong. Living from your parents' fortune is how you get aristocracy and no less than the architects of our Constitution, the Founding Fathers themselves, felt so strongly about estate taxes that they wrote extensively about it and wrote it into the law from the very beginning of our country.

Now that we've gone back on this wisdom, most off the wealthy class today did NOT earn their fortunes themselves.

Why is that fair?

ttystikk · Jun 24, 2017

SouthCross said:
Defend their laziness walking up the steps of an American made gallows? Built with hand made American pine wood?

Dude....We're also talking about American made HEMP rope.

I'm not the one to defend anything. I'm not the greed dictating your life. I wish you peace not control by beliefs.

This is word salad. What's your point?

ttystikk · Jun 24, 2017

goldberg71b said:
I don't defend the rich I defend equality!
The rich guy you say who didn't build that business. If that business fails he loses all his investment. Do those workers give back their wages? You can't compare the 2. If the rich aren't working they're taking all the risks. When's the last time you or anyone else was hired by a poor man? There would be no jobs without wealthy people.

What I think most of you want is socialism. There are nations that operate that way. And since this is a free country you're free to leave. It sounds like many of you would be happier. What's stopping you from moving to utopia? Move to Europe and choose your form of socialism and be happy! See if it's all you think it's cracked up to be.

The employees not only take the safety risks inherent in doing the work but they also risk the corporation going out of business AND the risk of them moving somewhere else. The idea that the workers take no risks is ridiculous.

ttystikk · Jun 24, 2017

goldberg71b said:
Slave wages LMAO. No one is forced to work and the economy decided wages. A major reason wages are low is because of all the illegal and legal immigrants. We have more people looking for work than we do work. Why would we allow more people in and allow the wages to drop is beyond me. But I'm not pushing for open boarders like liberals do. As the liberals why wages are low.

Bullshit. Once they broke the unions, corporations gained all of the pricing power of labor.

Your assertion that there are more jobs than workers is flat wrong, and you don't show any supporting evidence.

ttystikk · Jun 24, 2017

goldberg71b said:
Unfortunately in the short term you're right. But it's also the reasons we are going broke. The cost of those socialist policies. But that will end when the national debt tidal wave hits. Because we're not paying for those socialist benefits. We are borrowing to pay for them. When interest rates jump and no one loans us money anymore. You're socialist programs will be the first to go.

Look a social security. When proposed the money was to be kept in a locked box and not spent. Until the liberals figured out how to steal it. The day will come when it's insolvent and that's on the liberals.

Jesus this is stupid.

schuylaar · Jun 25, 2017

goldberg71b said:
America by definition can't line up with a strong far left leader. That's no longer democracy. It's some form of socialism. But they won't label it that way. That's Bernie territory without Bernie. I want people earning a living not living on others money. All the American dream entitles us to is a equal opportunity.!

You bring up an interesting point that I haven't heard in the last 30 seconds from another bitter old man.

For people to earn a living, they need to be fed, clothed and educated in good heath to compete. The average person is not lazy.

The American Dream in the time of 'when it was great' ala the 50s, we had a thing called GI Bill, our government invested in infrastructure and the wealthy paid their taxes.

Then along came Ronnie Raygun and the rest is history.

I truly get sick of the angry old man i.e. Archie Bunker types.

schuylaar · Jun 25, 2017

GuerillaGanjaGrower said:
We pay more per capita for healthcare as well and guess where we rank there buddy? So why do doctor's get paid so much?

YOU ARE NOT AN EXPERT ON EDUCATION. The reason we have a issue with education is because it is controlled in the State and National Legislatures by Fucking idiots like you who think they are experts on shit that they have no clue about.

Like an all male council on wyminz health.. :lol:

schuylaar · Jun 25, 2017

abandonconflict said:
Please define socialism:

"tax the rich"

If this is you, fuck you.

They do need to start paying their taxes. We'd have little to no deficit.

No need to respond.

abandonconflict · Jun 25, 2017

This is why I insult people.

ttystikk · Jun 25, 2017

schuylaar said:
You bring up an interesting point that I haven't heard in the last 30 seconds from another bitter old man.

For people to earn a living, they need to be fed, clothed and educated in good heath to compete. The average person is not lazy.

The American Dream in the time of 'when it was great' ala the 50s, we had a thing called GI Bill, our government invested in infrastructure and the wealthy paid their taxes.

Then along came Ronnie Raygun and the rest is history.

I truly get sick of the angry old man i.e. Archie Bunker types.

Don't forget the high tax rates on high incomes during that era.

SneekyNinja · Jun 25, 2017

ttystikk said:
Don't forget the high tax rates on high incomes during that era.

Not true.

Marginal rates were high, effective rates were about what they are now.

Your talking points might work on right wing retards but not on people grounded in objective reality.

dagwood45431 · Jun 25, 2017

rollitup said:
One question, are you actually Jewish, or is your user name meant to mock Jews?

His silence confirms that he is, in fact, mocking jews.

ttystikk · Jun 25, 2017

SneekyNinja said:
Not true.

Marginal rates were high, effective rates were about what they are now.

Your talking points might work on right wing retards but not on people grounded in objective reality.

As usual, no citation or other evidence, because No they weren't; for instance, capital gains taxes were also much higher.

You're hardly grounded or objective, something we've already discussed at length, Stinkydigit.

travisw · Jun 25, 2017

ttystikk said:
As usual, no citation or other evidence, because No they weren't; for instance, capital gains taxes were also much higher.

You're hardly grounded or objective, something we've already discussed at length, Stinkydigit.

Not trying to step into anything between you two, but he isn't wrong.

A Congressional Research Service study concluded that the effective tax rate for the top 0.01 percent of income earners during the period of 91-percent income taxes was actually 45 percent. Given that the top bracket is so much lower today ($3,425,766 in 1955 vs. $413,200 in 2015), the 39.6 percent top marginal rate probably yields something pretty close.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/r42729_0917.pdf

ttystikk · Jun 25, 2017

travisw said:
Not trying to step into anything between you two, but he isn't wrong.

A Congressional Research Service study concluded that the effective tax rate for the top 0.01 percent of income earners during the period of 91-percent income taxes was actually 45 percent. Given that the top bracket is so much lower today ($3,425,766 in 1955 vs. $413,200 in 2015), the 39.6 percent top marginal rate probably yields something pretty close.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/r42729_0917.pdf

At least you have provided some supporting evidence, thanks.

bernie sanders: regressive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member