Only one problem, in the real world, candy-stripped ponies don't exist.

But they shouldn't be singled out because they are rich. Any tax increase on them should be able to pass constitutional muster, I don't think that a wealth tax per se does pass muster.

What would I like to see?

The upper income tax rate on high earners and highly profitable corporations be set at a maximum rate of 40% of gross profits. They get an allowance on the tax rate be showing that they made or are making investments in new jobs, plants and equipment. The allowance can justifiably reduce their taxes, but must be audited to eliminate a abuse.

Properly fund the IRS and charge them with going after tax evaders and collecting unpaid taxes that go into hundreds of billions currently. A really big low hanging fruit. Around where I live a lot of people set up "farms" that allow them to effectively evade taxes due to farmers getting to income average over five years, no one else gets that, so for others, if a person makes $2 million in one year when normally $1 million is made, that $2 million gets taxed as two million (the fair way), for a farmer the $2 million gets taxed as $1.2 million, it is not a big difference, but if the saved tax is invested properly, it can offset the years of $1 million being taxed at $1.2 million, with some gain.

Kudos.

homeowners, landlords/ladies, etc. I'm talking about your constitutional objection.

You pay tax on your home every year, sometimes a LOT of tax, even though you may not be wealthy--you may not even have equity in your home.

It's only a question of how the assets are classified, isn't it?

There may be implementation issues, e.g., how to value assets like art collections, but problems like that have been solved in other contexts. And, some states already have an "intangibles" tax that taxes wealth.

People who make a lot of income are not necessarily the same as people who have a lot of wealth. Conceptually, why shouldn't someone who has managed through various deductions, etc., to have low taxable income, but who has $50 million in yachts, homes, jewelry, arts, etc., have to pay more tax than people who have fewer assets?

In the case of a wealth tax, a class of people are selected to pay a tax, those having the same class of asset but less of it don't have to pay the wealth tax. The wealth tax is the same as saying that red headed people that are taller than 5'10" have to pay a height tax, with the tax rate increasing with every 3" of height above 5'10", it is arbitrary in that it selects a group of a class for special treatment (in this case, paying tax on wealth above a certain amount).

The income tax is fairer and legally sound if done right, people pay a higher rate and dollar amount in taxes as their earnings increase, there is no selective choosing of who will pay and who won't pay.

People over a certain age, for example, may be exempt or entitled to defer tax.

Some states give farms property tax breaks, but farms still pay something.

With a wealth tax, only people above a certain wealth are singled out, there is no other reason for them being singled out other than their level of wealth. I am not defending such people, I am simply saying there are proven ways to force them to pay more money in taxes, methods that have stood up in Court.

the legality of something.

A wealth tax has not been tested in Court, a progressive income tax system has.

like real estate taxes.

The constitutionality of a wealth tax is a matter of considerable debate (but is unsettled).

State taxes and local taxes are a different matter.

in an ABA journal.

The constitutionality of such a tax remains unsettled.

If you ask a Republican about the Capital Gains tax, he will tell you it's a way to incentivize people risking their money supporting new and innovative businesses.

In reality, the Capital Gains tax has become a preferential tax rate for people who can afford to wait two years to receive their paychecks. When you cash out the stock you bought with stock options at least two years after receiving the options, you pay taxes on the gain at the Capital Gains tax rate.

Let's call it the Jeff Gordon Conundrum: if Jeff Gordon made $1 million driving the DuPont Chevrolet in NASCAR he'd pay taxes on it at the full rate, but if Jeff Gordon made $1 million selling DuPont stock he'd held at least a year, he'd pay taxes on it at the Capital Gains rate.

I believe that the capital gains preference should be eliminated entirely and gains be taxed at the standard income rate for the size of the sale. If a person is a business owner, he or she does not get to defer taxes on profits at all, in fact, such people are wise to pay the tax quarterly. Small business people do the majority of job creation in the country, yet they pay standard tax rates, allowing for depreciation of depreciable assets.

So how is a person that gets a stock option better than a person that owns a business and pays standard income rates? That is ass backwards if the republican argument of incentivizing increased economic activity is used.

The revolution would magically pass legislation. He used it at the debate. And at the NY Times interview. And skated by. I was pulling my hair out.

I considered him to be either a demagogue or a fraud. He was never properly vetted at any level. His variations on a theme speech is full of oughts, coulds, and shoulds and devoid of content. The more I read about Sanders, the smaller the man seems.

(2) He promises that (3) once in office,(1) a groundswell of support will emerge to push through his agenda.'- NYTimes

thing that all populists have in common, a passionate group of people that don't look at the fine details of what the populist is claiming.

.. but we can't.

Even though we used to do this.

Sanders style wealth tax. A few countries evaluated a wealth tax and decided that it was unworkable.

I have higher standards.

You would think Biden voters would be less inclined to embrace the fake news about deficits given we spent 8 freaking years fighting the Republicans over it during Obama’s presidency.
All federal spending, every penny is done by marking up accounts in the banking system. They can never run out. They can cause inflation. Nobody is saying Sanders plan is inflationary. MFA is prolly so deflationary it would cause a recession without offsetting tax cuts.

Billions of U.S. tax dollars being shoveled into the pockets of shady military contractors and god knows who else. That is the biggest scam going on for decades and no one wants to tackle it. No wonder we can't afford to cancel student debt, nor fund Medicare for All.

And military spending has gone up 5 years in a row and Congress loves pork. Even Bernie. See F-35's.

It's a con. He can't pass anything and he can't pay for anything.

Then we can pass what we want.

And no one is going to hand a President Sanders and Veep Nina Turner the reconciliation thing he keeps talking about. They won't do it. Because once you go down that road, there's no coming back. And if a GOP majority and GOP President get their hands on that were fucked.

You sure seem to be towing the Republican line for some reason. I wonder why that is.

I'm a republican.

It passed by reconciliation:


Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Congress that expedites the passage of certain budgetary legislation in the United States Senate. The Senate filibuster effectively requires a 60-vote super-majority for the passage of most legislation in the Senate, but reconciliation provides a process to prevent the use of the filibuster and thereby allow the passage of a bill with simple majority support in the Senate. The reconciliation procedure also exists in the United States House of Representatives, but reconciliation has had a less significant impact on that body.[1]

Reconciliation bills can be passed on spending, revenue, and the federal debt limit, and the Senate can pass one bill per year affecting each subject. Congress can thus pass a maximum of three reconciliation bills per year, though in practice it has often passed a single reconciliation bill affecting both spending and revenue.[2] Policy changes that are extraneous to the budget are limited by the "Byrd Rule", which also prohibits reconciliation bills from increasing the federal deficit after a ten-year period or making changes to Social Security.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)#Byrd_Rule



Here's how it went down:

The bill was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on November 2, 2017, by Congressman Kevin Brady, Republican of Texas. On November 9, 2017, the House Ways and Means Committee passed the bill on a party-line vote, advancing the bill to the House floor.[176] The House passed the bill on November 16, 2017, on a mostly-party line vote of 227–205. No Democrat voted for the bill, while 13 Republicans voted against it.[177][178] On the same day, companion legislation passed the Senate Finance Committee, again on a party-line vote, 14–12.[179] On November 28, the legislation passed the Senate Budget Committee, again on a party-line vote.[180] On December 2, the Senate passed its version by 51–49, with Bob Corker being the only Republican not to vote in support of the bill.[189]

The benefits of the individual tax cuts fade over time, so the Senate could attempt to pass the bill with only 51 votes under the budget reconciliation process. This is specifically to comply with the Byrd Rule, which allows Senators to block legislation if it would increase the deficit significantly beyond a ten-year term.[190][191]


Because it complied with this:

Byrd Rule
Further information: Sunset provision § Budget Act and the Byrd Rule

The Byrd Rule defines any reconciliation changes to Social Security as "extraneous"—and therefore ineligible for reconciliation.
The Byrd Rule, named for Senator Robert Byrd, was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990.[10] It has been used to remove certain provisions from a reconciliation bill in a process known as a "Byrd Bath".[11] The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous"—and therefore ineligible for reconciliation—in six cases:[2]

If it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
If it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
If it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
If it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
If it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure (usually a period of ten years);[c] or
If it recommends changes in Social Security.

The Byrd Rule does not automatically prevent the inclusion of extraneous provisions, but rather relies on objecting senators to strip provisions by raising procedural objections.[13] Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the Presiding Officer, customarily on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling. The Presiding Officer need not necessarily follow the advice of the Parliamentarian, and the Parliamentarian can be replaced by the Senate Majority Leader.[14] The Vice President as President of the Senate can overrule the parliamentarian, but this has not been done since 1975.[15] In 2001, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott fired Parliamentarian Robert Dove after dissatisfaction with his rulings, replacing him with Alan Frumin.[16]

He might use it for other stuff though. It;s up to him. But it has to fit the crazy rules. But you can definitely pass stuff with a majority.

NO FAIR!

The thing that pissed me off about Bernie was that he wasn't being truthful about the process. He said he'd blow up the process with revolution. It was nonsense. Then he took the high ground with his pile of impassable legislation and hurled bombs at those keeping shit real.

push left wing reasons for why we can do things. If someone does not want to be mistaken for a Republican, then they should stop talking like one.

is intolerable to you, but I'd suggest you suck it up buttercup.

You are not the arbiter of who is and isn't a Democrat.

The hostile, abusive, and aggressive comments that suggest anyone who disagrees with you is a fake-Democrat, a right-winger, or a Republican is not something you should be allowed to get away with on a pro-Democratic forum.

Cool it!

But not mainstream liber Dem. I understand the allure of wanting to be perceived as liberal around here; but constantly shooting down obviously liberal policy goals prevents someone from being a liberal. That would be like if said I was a pro football player even though evidence exists to the contrary.

the vast majority of our party.

You are being divisive, hostile, and insulting.

Please stop it!

on this site is "pushing rw talking points".

Last edited Sat Jan 25, 2020, 07:43 AM - Edit history (1)

He is doing this again. This was big in 2016. He flubbed the interview. It was a disaster. Why are they giving him a pass now.

"During his interview and elsewhere on the trail, Sanders has been beaten up for not specifying how he will pass his agenda through Congress, which observers astutely note is controlled by Republicans rather than democratic socialists. Clinton does not get the same question, though it applies equally to her more moderate agenda. (Greg Sargent notes that he has raised concerns about this with regard to Clinton.) The answer that Sanders gives — and gave again to the Daily News — does not, in the eyes of the media, qualify as an answer. But there are only a handful of possibilities:

1) Republicans suddenly agree to pass his agenda.


2) Sanders compromises with Republicans, in which case he doesn’t pass his agenda.


3) A “political revolution” sweeps Republicans out of office and changes the contours of the debate."



Uses 1 and 3:


1) In VOX on how to cut military spending - Republicans suddenly agree to pass his agenda.

"But when I’m president, we’re not presenting that budget. We will present a thoughtful budget that meets the defense needs of this country without just simply supplying billions of dollars of unnecessary money to the military industrial complex.

I would be a president who says, you know what, I want you to justify these cost overruns. Why are we spending so much? So I think we can pare back on what our needs are and at the same time not spend more as the next 10 countries combined."

"That’s the way it works; when the president says, “I want this,” then fine. [If] the president says, “Look, I want you to start — for the first time — to take a hard look at the military budget and tell me why you think you need all this money and try to pare it down, because we have other needs,” then it becomes a whole other process."

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/2/18525580/bernie-sanders-plan-cut-military-spending


3) This is candy-striped ponies magic fairy dust revolution - A “political revolution” sweeps Republicans out of office and changes the contours of the debate."

Busted on Twitter (not me):

Hey Mitch, look out your window. See that, Mitch? It's the Political Revolution!"

- Bernie Sanders, perhaps sometime in a hypothetical future in which Sen. Majority Ldr. Mitch McConnell unexpectedly obstructs progress in the Senate. Of course, that will never happen, but still.



"'We will have Medicare for All when tens of millions of people are prepared to stand up & tell the insurance companies & the drug companies that their day is gone, that health care is a human right, not something to make huge profits off of." -CNN


'He promises that once in office, a groundswell of support will emerge to push through his agenda.'- NYTimes


In the 3 years since he did that disastrous interview Bernie has not come up with any new ideas on how to pass his legislation. He has new promises. No new ideas on how to pass things In three fucking years. It's crazy. M4A is new. How to pass it? He uses an answer from 2016. Cuts to the military? Goes back to 2016. And he was told then they didn't qualify as answers. What is he smoking.

....the Affordable Care Act, which he famously called "a big f-ing deal"!

His plan is to build on that, not scrap it and try to implement something that is virtually unpassable, and as yet as we see in the OP, unfunded.

If he did, he would have a plan.

year college and making four year college more affordable.

A few years service to the state that funded you.

Pretty sure I read that, late and have to go so can't research a link.

[link:https://joebiden.com/beyondhs/|]

From CNN.com:
[link:https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/joe-biden-higher-education-plan/index.html|]

From Politico.com:
[link:https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/08/joe-biden-2020-election-community-college-student-loans-plan-041634|]

From CNBC.com:
[link:https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/08/biden-proposes-to-make-community-college-tuition-free.html|]

From Forbes.com:
[link:https://www.forbes.com/sites/wesleywhistle/2019/10/08/three-things-to-know-about-joe-bidens-higher-education-plan/|]

From Huffpost.com:
[link:https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-college-debt-plan_n_5d9bdd99e4b03b475f9eae26|]

From Washingtonpost.com:
[link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bidens-campaign-touts-750-billion-plan-aimed-at-boosting-community-colleges/2019/10/07/a08b1a7c-e959-11e9-9306-47cb0324fd44_story.html|]

From U.S. News & World Report:
[link:https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2019-10-08/joe-biden-outlines-higher-education-platform|]

From PBS.org:
[link:https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-unveils-plan-for-free-community-college|]

...has every aspect of the proposal including what's included, who will be covered, how it will be administered, WHO will administer it, and how it will be funded.

All any of us has seen is what's included and a wavering who will be covered. That's where this "plan" ends - no mention of how it will be administered, who will administer it, and perhaps most importantly how it will be funded.

NO ONE KNOWS, not even the proposer!

I mean, you'd think that this twitter user would actually watch the clip to see what's in it, right? I mean, if not, might as well just post a clip from Star Wars and pretend it's Bernie saying he wants to eat little kids!

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Responded in the wrong thread maybe?

Even most Dems won't go for that.
He's been proposing that for years and still hasn't done a study to get a cost estimate.

Unacceptable.

And I saw another article where he was saying he hadn't finished his plans yet and he'd get back to the paper with details later etc etc

I had just finished reading an article from today where he said almost the same thing. Not ready yet. No idea how to pay for it. Get back to you.

The same thing. I was gobsmacked. He did it in the 2016 race and he was doing it now. Unbelievable.

But the thing that pisses me off is the way they'd lord it up with their hypothetical plan. M4A is better than ACA. Well ACA actually exists. M4A doesn't. There was a guy in Texas - Justin for Congress - a fringe no chance of winning candidate who said he wished Obama died of cancer because the ACA sucked and M4A was better and since your plan sucks your a murderer. More or less. That kind of thing drives me nuts. LOL

thinking of free college. More kegs for the frat parties -yay!

with the largest yearly deficit in our history

democrats were so happy they got maternity leave for federal workers

I have not seen or read anywhere where anyone asked how it would be paid for

The problem is whether we really want that much money being given to an already privileged fraction of the population and not the less fortunate.

Just print money. That would lead to hyperinflation and the ruin of this country.

We must seriously address our debt issues. That will involve raising taxes.

Playing devil's advocate here: If it's true that we do that for other expenditures, then why not for things that benefit US citizens?

My issue with Bernie is I just don't think he's qualified for the position. I'm looking for the opposite of trump.

"How are you going to pay for those tax cuts?"

Ginormous prescription drug costs?" said no reporter ever.


If we can give trillion dollar tax cuts, we can afford student loan bailouts. What we cant afford is betting on a market where student loans are increasing, continuing to be invested in while not being paid into, and likely to collapse.

Give trillion dollar tax cuts or afford endless war.

Which is why the wars should end and taxes raised.

But that doesn’t mean we have enough $ for more spending either.

It is helping preventing a second economic collapse based on assets with no real value.

Nobody asked how he will pay for it. They asked how much it costs.

"It'll never come to pass, or Pie in the Sky."

Not me. Us. Kinda weird to see people here repeating right wing talking points like it is the best thing since sliced bread.

This voter revolution makes no sense to me. If sanders can generate such a voter reduction, now is a good time

Link to tweet

attack interview offensive. And I despise and distrust Sanders, who couldn't possibly carry out his extremist campaign promises in a nation that doesn't want them at best and loathes them at worst.

But in spite of his contemptible attempts to claim and distort all liberal ideals for himself, her hacking at his fantasies was cutting a bit too close to the bone of our Democratic plans to suit me. Laying bare his inability to come through is one thing, not making it clear in so doing that honorable Democratic goals are something else entirely wasn't okay.

When I went to school one could work a minimum wage job, pay their tuition at a Community College and not go into debt.

That all starting changing around the time of Reagan.

high school to go to work full time, a coworker and I rented a 2-bedroom apartment and we took the bus to work, but we did that to rent in a nicer neighborhood than otherwise and put money away in savings. I could have supported myself entirely on my own with what I earned as a 17-year-old entry-job waitress. And only some of my modest savings were needed to pay for a full semester of college classes in community college, books and so on.

It can be that way and much better even again. That was long before computers and modern production. I was looking at a pretty ceramic centerpiece the other day for $18 and remembering when as a young mother I browsed stuff like that wistfully because I simply couldn't afford to buy something that nice when prices were much higher.

I wish young people today realized the great possibilities well within reach with just some tweaking of the great riches we have, the kind OUR grandparents did with what was available then.

I'm not. You are.

Not a popular answer, but the only one that's correct.

With a better tax code. Duh. Easy answer Bernie.

The 1% has 50 TRILLION DOLLARS IN WEALTH.

Untaxed till they sell if they ever do.

How is your overtaxed family doing.

Tax wealth over $5 million a percentage every year.

The answers are stupid easy.

Eliminate the interest which is outrageously high, or make the rate 1% and pay back what you owe. I had student loan debt, my wife did, my daughter does and my son will. My daughter is paying 7+ Percent as an interest rate on her government loans. The commercial loans are lower. How does that make sense.

I realize there are different programs, college costs have soared, etc. ... but I'm not seeing this as in the top 5 issues we need to address as a nation. Probably not in the top 10 either.

Predatory lending and other predatory financial behavior that takes advantage primarily of the poor and disadvantaged ... THAT should come before "free college for everyone", at least.

Addressing the lack of diversity in hiring for Information Technology positions could be significant in addressing racial inequalities. Companies hire from India due to several incentives. We should be giving BETTER incentives for creating those opportunities for African Americans, who are hugely underrepresented in IT departments.

Just to mention a couple items that should come before free college for everyone. Obviously climate change and our debacle of a health care system are way up on the list too.

That is what pisses me off. I can redo her loans at the credit union, but then she gives up her ability to get loan forgiveness if she works in a title 1 school.

I think I had the Stafford loan program. It was like 2.75% and the monthly payment was very reasonable. I paid extra every month and paid off early, just like I did my mortgage. Mortgage was higher interest rate so I paid that off first, before paying extra on the student loan, of course. And I never carry a balance on a credit card - outside extenuating circumstances, that's idiotic.

I don't understand why government student loan interest rate would be so high. Unless she got it at a time when prime was MUCH higher than it is today. Or maybe missed payments, so losing any low-rate incentives.

In any case, you are right that the interest rate should be much lower. That is a much better approach than free college. And kids should know about community college transfer programs. Community college classes are often great, they're smaller, and much less expensive. Outside of going to elite schools, I don't see the point of going first two years to a 4 year school for anyone on a budget.

It's not that there aren't solutions out there, in my opinion. It's that too few people know about them before incurring the huge debt.

And the parent plus loan I took out is also 7.8 percent. Those are 2019 rates

Federal Direct Student Loan 2014-2015 Interest Rates
Knowing and understanding the interest rates of your federal student loans is an important step in navigating the path to financial success.
For Federal Direct Student Loans disbursed July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015, the following rates are fixed for the life of the loan:
Direct Subsidized Loans and Direct Unsubsidized Loans for Undergraduate Students
4.66%

Direct Unsubsidized Loans for Graduate and Professional Students
6.21%

Direct PLUS Loans for Parents of Undergraduate Students and Direct PLUS Loans for Graduate/Professional Students
7.21%

I'm pretty sure prime rate is lower today, or at least similar, than when I got my loan, but I may be mistaken.

I strongly agree that base rates for student loans should be low. (once we are starting with low interest rates, I have no problems with a reasonable penalty rate for missing payments - say + .5%, not +5 though)

I also think it should be easier for the disadvantaged to access higher education (and better access to high quality early and secondary education would be even better).

I don't agree with "free college for all" in the current state of this country. We have bigger problems and need to change some of the societal context before it would have any possibility of being a good idea.

I just find it amusing that the government generated a lot of income off student loan interest

It's ONLY asked about spending that helps people.

The media is NOT on our side.

with the rigged trial rather than be in Iowa but ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

I would not be happy with that if I were a resident of Vermont, nor have I heard Klobuchar, Warren or Bennett say anything like that. In contrast they understand and are eager to do THEIR JOB. They realize that campaigning is not actually in their job description.

Link to tweet