Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[grunion]

Chuck - can you answer your own question? Exactly who does it remind YOU of?

 

[Trakar]

I suppose you could be right. After all, don't most socialists look to the Republican Party for policy guidance?

The article you linked to used "possibly as high as 90%",IIRC. But that has nothing to do with my question.
At 50% (or choose any percentage you feel comfortable with), how much revenue will it generate, and who will it apply to?

If you would like to look at the economics of a 90% marginal upper bracket rate. There is a somewhat recent economic study that was performed based on this premise:

"High Marginal Tax Rates on the Top 1%? Lessons from a Life Cycle Model with Idiosyncratic Income Risk"
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20601

Abstract
This paper argues that high marginal labor income tax rates are an effective tool for social insurance even when households have high labor supply elasticity, make dynamic savings decisions, and policies have general equilibrium effects. We construct a large scale Overlapping Generations Model with uninsurable labor productivity risk, show that it has a realistic wealth distribution and then numerically characterize the optimal top marginal rate. We find that marginal tax rates for top 1% earners of close to 90% are optimal as long as the earnings and wealth distributions display a degree of concentration as observed in US data.

We find that the optimal marginal tax rates on the top 1% of earners is indeed very high, in excess of 90%, and thus consistent with the empirically observed levels after World War II. Note that since we explicitly consider the transition periods in our policy analysis, our results capture both short- and long-run consequences of the policy reforms we consider. Interestingly, even when including welfare of current and future top 1% earners in the social welfare function, and even when restricting attention only to the long-run consequences of the policy reform (by adopting a steady state welfare measure) we find very high optimal marginal tax rates, in the order of about 90%.

In short, the authors conclude that the current top marginal tax rates in the US are lower than optimal and that pursuing policies aimed at increasing them to optimal levels, as defined in this, and numerous similar studies over the last decade or two, are likely to be beneficial for society as a whole.

Personally, until the loop-holes and deductions are tightened up and, capital gains taxes are brought up to a much more relevant and significant rate, and the estate tax is properly addressed to prevent the long-term accumulation of wealth in relatively few hands, not much of significance would be accomplished by raising the upper income tax brackets.

In fact, IMO, more can be accomplished by first tightening the code (re: tax credits, deductions and avoidance/offsets) and treating capital gains earnings as "income" and increasing estate taxes to 100% on everything over $2M, than any rush to raise marginal income tax rates in the absence of such steps.

 

[Trakar]

Why do you keep avoiding the question?

I told you who Sander's policies remind me of, the Progressive party policies and practices that were originally born in the Republican Party at the turn of the 20th century. This is when Progressive Republicanism was born.

 

[Trakar]

Ah, perhaps, I see what question you were referring to. Are you wanting me to give you a level of revenues generated and who they would be levied against with regard to an increase in the upper few marginal income tax brackets on the top earners in America? The revenues raised will depend entirely upon how the top earners respond to the tax as well as to how securely the tax code is made eliminate and minimize deductions and tax breaks/credits. The primary goal of properly designed taxes, however, is not to raise revenue, it is to change behavior. In the case of higher marginal rates at the upper income levels the goal is to discourage and eliminate the accumulation of wealth at the top levels of earnings not necessarily to raise large amounts of revenue for the state.

 

[bit_pattern]

Where have I heard that before?

Any number of examples of social-democratic countries that have prospered under such policies, perhaps? (I've deleted the hyperbole in your post, and am instead referring to the *actual* Sanders plan)

Why do you keep avoiding the question?

Lack of mind-reading abilities, perhaps?

 

[Trakar]

If people can't be bothered to look up a label before using it then they shouldn't use it to define themselves by.

Socialism:

How hard can this be?

I used to get frustrated about this, but I don't let myself get frustrated over other people's failure to live up to my standards.

First, everyone has to agree on the same definitions, this is more uncommon than common in today's world. Like I said, I don't worry about labels too much, sow's ear or silk purse, if I can't tell the difference according to the characteristics I evaluate, it makes little difference to me what label someone else puts on it.

According to some understandings of social organization, democracy is a very socialist system of political governance. Social = people working together to accomplish benefits for all within the group. Democracy = people voting upon what social goals should be at the forefront of their group's agenda.

 

[caveman1917]

this is more uncommon than common in today's world.

One can see why

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Chuck - can you answer your own question? Exactly who does it remind YOU of?

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer.
What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence...All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation...

Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.


Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Free education for all children in public schools.


And here is Sanders position:

Higher taxes on the wealthy:...

Extremely high estate taxes...

Raising the minimum wage:...
"The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage and must be raised," he said last week. "The minimum wage must become a living wage – which means raising it to $15 an hour over the next few years."

Breaking up the big banks:...
Sanders is committed to the idea of restoring balance to the economy by downsizing and regulating Wall Street. In May, he introduced a bill called the "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act," which would direct the Treasury Department to break up the behemoth banks that threaten the stability of the economy. The bill also proposes banning these banks from using taxpayer-insured deposits for speculative activity.

Reducing unemployment: Sanders has called for a massive federal jobs program devoted to modernizing the country's infrastructure. In January, he authored a bill that would invest $1 trillion in renovating infrastructure over the course of five years that he estimates would create 13 million jobs.

Free public college:..


Revolutionizing health care
Single-payer health care:...

Maybe it's just me, but I note a striking, almost word for word, similarity between the two.

 

[Trakar]

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer.
What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence...All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation...

Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.


Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Free education for all children in public schools.


And here is Sanders position:

Higher taxes on the wealthy:...

Extremely high estate taxes...

Raising the minimum wage:...
"The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage and must be raised," he said last week. "The minimum wage must become a living wage – which means raising it to $15 an hour over the next few years."

Breaking up the big banks:...
Sanders is committed to the idea of restoring balance to the economy by downsizing and regulating Wall Street. In May, he introduced a bill called the "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act," which would direct the Treasury Department to break up the behemoth banks that threaten the stability of the economy. The bill also proposes banning these banks from using taxpayer-insured deposits for speculative activity.

Reducing unemployment: Sanders has called for a massive federal jobs program devoted to modernizing the country's infrastructure. In January, he authored a bill that would invest $1 trillion in renovating infrastructure over the course of five years that he estimates would create 13 million jobs.

Free public college:..


Revolutionizing health care
Single-payer health care:...

Maybe it's just me, but I note a striking, almost word for word, similarity between the two.

Seeing what you look for, and ignoring, or not noticing, what you don't look for, is a big part of redefining labels to fit your rhetorical arguments instead of fitting your arguments to a less subjective interpretation of the facts.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

If you would like to look at the economics of a 90% marginal upper bracket rate. There is a somewhat recent economic study that was performed based on this premise:

"High Marginal Tax Rates on the Top 1%? Lessons from a Life Cycle Model with Idiosyncratic Income Risk"
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20601





In short, the authors conclude that the current top marginal tax rates in the US are lower than optimal and that pursuing policies aimed at increasing them to optimal levels, as defined in this, and numerous similar studies over the last decade or two, are likely to be beneficial for society as a whole.

Personally, until the loop-holes and deductions are tightened up and, capital gains taxes are brought up to a much more relevant and significant rate, and the estate tax is properly addressed to prevent the long-term accumulation of wealth in relatively few hands, not much of significance would be accomplished by raising the upper income tax brackets.

In fact, IMO, more can be accomplished by first tightening the code (re: tax credits, deductions and avoidance/offsets) and treating capital gains earnings as "income" and increasing estate taxes to 100% on everything over $2M, than any rush to raise marginal income tax rates in the absence of such steps.

All that sounds well and good, as State controlled social welfare programs always benefit ( to one degree or another) by additional revenues, but how does this apply in any real sense?
According to Sen Sanders the top 400 richest people control about $2 Trillion. According to Forbes more than half of that is in the hands of the top 100 earners ( people like Warren Buffet, who I believe came in second behind Bill Gates). Buffet is a good example as his taxable income (salary) has been published: $100,000.00 per year
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett
Buffets worth however is about $68 Billion dollars.
You could take 99.99 % of his income in taxes and it still wouldn't put him out, or even in line with an average "S" corp. business owner. Buffet doesn't need to ever earn another nickel, so if he didn't feel like it, he could pay himself minimum wage and walk away laughing as he heads to the dealership to order another Maybach. No amount of income tax is going to affect him overmuch, because he, like the other 99 in that list already have accumulated so much wealth that they never have to "earn" anything.
The same goes for capital gains. The tax only applies when you realize the gain (liquidate the stock, bonds, etc.). Buffett, and the others don't have to do this, ever. They simply take out a loan from one of the corporations they own and use the stocks from another as collateral. No tax liability at all.

The people who will be affected most are successful business owners who don't have enough wealth that they can play the shell game with their stocks and bonds. Many of these are those "S" corp owners I mentioned earlier.

Even if this weren't the case, the programs that Sanders is pitching (and you are supporting) are so incredibly expensive it's fair to ask: where's the money going to come from?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Seeing what you look for, and ignoring, or not noticing, what you don't look for, is a big part of redefining labels to fit your rhetorical arguments instead of fitting your arguments to a less subjective interpretation of the facts.

Really? Just where do these two listed positions differ in any meaningful way?

 

[Trakar]

One can see why

LOL

Even dictionaries offer a multiplicity of definitions for most terms and labels. All living languages evolve and change according to how they are used and abused.

 

[Trakar]

Really? Just where do these two listed positions differ in any meaningful way?

Your lists are far from complete in their descriptions of any political ideology I am aware of.

Breaking up too big to fail financial corporations dependent upon federal insurance of deposits that they are choosing to gamble with knowing that their losses will be covered with little or no consequence to the primary shareholders is far from "supporting the nationalization of banks." Rather the opposite in fact.

But if you actually want to discuss individual issues and the pros and cons of such issues instead of trying to force improper labels upon them (aka: 'Smearing"), I would be happy to engage in that discussion.

 

[caveman1917]

All living languages evolve and change according to how they are used and abused.

It's not about language evolving though. But it doesn't matter, it's not like he'll use something more appropriate to describe his ideology.

 

[SezMe]

Even if this weren't the case, the programs that Sanders is pitching (and you are supporting) are so incredibly expensive it's fair to ask: where's the money going to come from?

Since you know the proposed scheme is "incredibly expensive" you must know upon whom that expense burden lies. Please inform us.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Your lists are far from complete in their descriptions of any political ideology I am aware of.

The same could be said(with more accuracy) of your response.
My original statement was to the effect of "sounds familiar", and I've shown you direct similarities.

But if you actually want to discuss individual issues and the pros and cons of such issues instead of trying to force improper labels upon them (aka: 'Smearing"), I would be happy to engage in that discussion.

Fine by me. We can start with:

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Unless you'd prefer to start with the completely different:

Higher taxes on the wealthy: Sanders has called for much higher taxes on the wealthy to transfer wealth back to ordinary Americans. In May, he floated the possibility of taxing top earners at a rate of 90% on the highest portion of their income.

Just how does Sen. Sanders proposal translate to anything other than another dodge to take a bite out of the middle class? How much money do you think it will make available for redistribution, and by what means?
Let me make the question clear:

If Sen Sanders proposal was enacted into law, how much of the revenue generated would come from the top .1% (where most of the wealth has accrued), and how would it be redistributed?

 

[Trakar]

It's not about language evolving though. But it doesn't matter, it's not like he'll use something more appropriate to describe his ideology.

As I said, I've seen reference to him using both terms to describe his political philosophy so I'm not sure how much of this is his ambiguity and how much of this is media confusion about terms.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Since you know the proposed scheme is "incredibly expensive" you must know upon whom that expense burden lies. Please inform us.

Since his plan calls for putting 13 million workers on the public payroll (at $15.00 p/hr minimum) and nationalizing healthcare in the bargain, I'd have to say that A) Yeah, that's gonna be very expensive, and B) It'll come out of the taxpayers pocket.

 

[Trakar]

The same could be said(with more accuracy) of your response.
My original statement was to the effect of "sounds familiar", and I've shown you direct similarities.

So, you composed a simplistic partial list of characteristics that you claim defines a target boogey-man ideology that that you decided ahead of time to use as a smear and then you paraphrase/generalize some progressive policies that Sanders has mentioned and you conflate these two lists even in areas where what Sanders is proposing is diametrically the opposite of your composed list item, and then you try to claim that the two look identical to you and you wonder why I don't take you seriously?

I've shown you direct similarities to the progressive planks of the republican party. Of course, I didn't paraphrase and twist them to try and make them more accurate reflections of your self-composed list, but that's on me I guess.

Want to see what I can do with a list of paraphrased conservative planks and say a self composed list of some of Iran's governing principles?

 

[Olowkow]

5 faith facts about Bernie Sanders - http://www.religionnews.com/2015/04/29/5-faith-facts-bernie-sanders-unabashedly-irreligious/

I don't see atheism (or at least anti-religion) in any of his words or actions, but I do see someone who appears to believe that one's personal religious beliefs have no valid role in governing or representing a religiously diverse population.

No, for sure I don't see any "anti religion" at all in Bernie's approach, which is quite wise if an atheist is to ever be elected to anything. In my experience, most astute atheists broadly speaking try to never self identify as such in real life, and most of us are never asked bluntly whether we are atheists. When asked what church I go to, I always answered that I'm not very religious any more. But to flat out say "I don't believe in god" would really close off easy paths to a lot of otherwise good and helpful folks.

It's certainly fair game, however, in American politics nowadays to ask a politician whether he believes in god, and you can bet your life that someone eventually will ask Bernie Sanders if he's a closet atheist. I'm betting he has already honed a witty response. It will very likely be a high profile, well planned goofy attack by the right wing, and Bernie's response will be loudly headlined by Fox News. It might be something along the lines of "Like a lot of you, I'm not very religious these days. I try not to bother or worry him too much for help, since the problems we have to face are so depressing, and the Bible says we should help ourselves first." It's that presupposition of the existence of a god that people need to hear, not a claim of belief. Bernie has better speech writers than the republicans.

Finally, the whole loopy ploy will be downplayed by the Republican Party as an "unfair litmus test" in order to get a few creds with young voters. But Fox News, no doubt it will be the dapper teen Peter Doocy, will use whatever it is that Bernie had to say in response to the question against him.

Bernie Sanders was quoted recently as saying "I don't 'bother god' any more". Amazing!!!11! But he left the room quickly and refused to identify himself as an atheist. We were unable to confirm, but one reporter for Fox News in the hall as Sanders left claimed Bernie told him to go **** himself when he asked him if he was afraid to admit to being an avowed atheerist. Correction, make that atheist, Gretchen.

That will certainly "make the cheese more binding", so to speak, as an old college card playing buddy used to say.

I was never bothered by Jimmy Carter's brand of Christianity which he professed while President. It was a philosophy of humility, kindness and integrity. He still is a brilliant, humble and kind man of great integrity.

It's not the religion per se that is creepy, it's just the present form of evangelicalism that has lent a distinct image of insanity to the entire republican party, and they welcomed it as the whores they have become.

We can't lose this one folks. Too much riding on it. Pull out some money from that piggy bank and let it fly.