Bernie Sanders Running for US President

[dust1n]

I agree. I don't include him with the Clintons, McCains, & other perps.

Rightly so.

Examples:
- Regulations for grass roots campaigns can be used to prevent undesired speech.
Pol could use this to silence opposition.

I'm not sure what you mean? Which regulations for grass roots campaigns?

- McCain Feingold has allowed suppression of political speech by radio hosts by placing a monetary value on their "in kind contribution".
This sanction is imposed by those currently in power, which creates opportunity for mischief, ie, favoring their own agenda.

I'll have to consider that more. If I understand BCRA at all, it stopped people from placing political ads within so many days of an actual election, and this was overturned. I don't know what all else it does offhand, so let me look it up.

Okay, so apparently the other thing is

"The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;"

I'm not sure what this entails yet, but if the new policy were a general limitation of political contributions, or a public matching program, this sort of thing might be unnecessary.

I wasn't....but I like the idea!

Let me get my staff on it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure what you mean? Which regulations for grass roots campaigns?

I've run across things in the news over the years.
The ACLU, IJ, & Cato Institute have addressed.
Here is one....
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/doclib/20100419_Milyo2010GrassrootsLobbying.pdf

 

[dust1n]

Can't decide if I like links at the beginning of a story or the end yet.

The tax rates that don't cause Bernie Sanders to 'flinch' | MSNBC

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is many things, but subtle isn’t one of them. Take a look at these comments the Democratic presidential candidate made to CNBC about higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

“These people are so greedy, they’re so out of touch with reality,” he said. “They think they own the world…. I’m sorry to have to tell them, they live in the United States, they benefit from the United States, we have kids who are hungry in this country. We have people who are working two, three, four jobs, who can’t send their kids to college.

“Sorry, you’re all going to have to pay your fair share of taxes,” he asserted. “If my memory is correct, when radical socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90 percent.”

That last part is true, by the way. In the 1950s, when Republicans were far more interested in deficit reduction than tax breaks, Eisenhower was committed to helping pay off World War II-era debts. He kept Roosevelt’s 90% top marginal rate in place, and the post-war economy boomed anyway. (It wasn’t until JFK in 1961 that Washington approved a “peace dividend,” and even then, some Republicans of the era balked, still preferring to focus on the debt, not tax breaks.)

But Sanders’ support for similar rates is so far from mainstream norms that his comments strike much of the political world as somehow bizarre. The New York Times noted with incredulity that the Vermont senator “doesn’t flinch over returning to the 90 percent personal income tax rates of the 1950s for top earners.”

Over at Salon, it led Simon Maloy to raise a good point: “We’ve become so accustomed to historically low rates of taxation for the wealthy that when someone like Sanders comes along and says the rich can and should pay a far higher rate, people assume he’s out to lunch.”

The flip side to the dynamic is that while reporters and pundits raise their eyebrows at the notion of dramatically increasing the tax burden on the wealthy, absurd and irresponsible tax cuts for top earners are now just assumed to be a given when it comes to Republican policymaking. Several current Republican candidates for the presidency have laid out plans that would eliminate capital gains taxes and the estate tax while cutting the top income tax rate. […]

The thrust of GOP policymaking is to redirect an even greater share of the nation’s wealth to the already engorged few sitting at the top of the income ladder. Sanders is proposing instead that we funnel some of that wealth away from the rich and toward the middle class. And while we’re supposed to “flinch” at a high rate of taxation for income, a zero percent rate on investments is taken in stride.




By the way, this is a great story:

Bernie Sanders' Presidential Bid Is Part of a Long Tradition of American Socialism | BillMoyers.com

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem with high marginal tax rates is that it saps productivity.
Why didn't that happen before?
Because the tax code had dodges which lowered the average tax rate to far below the high marginal rates.
With those dodges gone (eg, accelerated depreciation), they couldn't get away with it now.
We had other economic advantages which are less now, eg, technological edge, non-war torn infrastructure, less of a nanny state.
Bernie seems a nice guy, but he's a raving loon.

 

[dust1n]

I've run across things in the news over the years.
The ACLU, IJ, & Cato Institute have addressed.
Here is one....
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/doclib/20100419_Milyo2010GrassrootsLobbying.pdf

Thanks. I don't intend to do away with lobbying. I'm still undecided about lobbying because naturally both good and terrible things come from it. I'd be more apt to change elections into a form representational democracy, a general even limit on contributions, or public matching of funds for candidates.

 

[dust1n]

The problem with high marginal tax rates is that it saps productivity.
Why didn't that happen before?
Because the tax code had dodges which lowered the average tax rate to far below the high marginal rates.
With those dodges gone (eg, accelerated depreciation), they couldn't get away with it now.
We had other economic advantages which are less now, eg, technological edge, non-war torn infrastructure, less of a nanny state.
Bernie seems a nice guy, but he's a raving loon.

I don't actually think Bernie Sanders intends to make a 90% tax on anything, at least he has never indicated as such. It seems to me he was making a point that a Republican of the past supported such a measure; either apparently counting on those rich people to get around it, or unaware that such a thing would happen (this last part being my own conjecture).

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't actually think Bernie Sanders intends to make a 90% tax on anything, at least he has never indicated as such. It seems to me he was making a point that a Republican of the past supported such a measure; either apparently counting on those rich people to get around it, or unaware that such a thing would happen (this last part being my own conjecture).

For him to talk about a single aspect of tax policy (which appears quite punitive in isolation) without addressing offsetting policies of the time shows either cluelessness or dishonesty. I suspect it's the former because he has no business or economics training or experience.

 

[dust1n]

For him to talk about a single aspect of tax policy (which appears quite punitive in isolation) without addressing offsetting policies of the time shows either cluelessness or dishonesty. I suspect it's the former because he has no business or economics training or experience.

One of the nicer things about him. Helps distinguish him from all those lawyers and MBA holders.

 

[Revoltingest]

One of the nicer things about him. Helps distinguish him from all those lawyers and MBA holders.

Ignorance of critical issues is dangerous.
If we're to head pell mell into socialism, we should get some experienced candidates from the PRC.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Bernie Sanders has officially announced his run for president.

Bernie Sanders Announces He Is Running For President In 2016

As much as I like him, I don't know if he is viable. I think he'd be valuable as a department head.

 

[dust1n]

Ignorance of critical issues is dangerous.
If we're to head pell mell into socialism, we should get some experienced candidates from the PRC.

Unlikely. As we are all aware, the POTUS is not the only wielder of power, nor would anyone expect Bernie Sanders to get even half of the things he'd like to get done, done. Even if he did, such a proposition would have to be channeled through a litany of people are do have such experiences. Presumably the POTUS is not aware of all thing possible things affecting a nation, yet makes decisions anyways presumably with the help of a White House staff that exists far beyond just the president.

The point is a symbolic one. The symbol is that of a disenfranchised population, who are now all employed, but whose wages have gone at all, in any measurement with inflation adjusted, that are pretty much willing to take one of the few remaining means of actually being heard. Also sort of a one last ditch effort to at least attempt to spread any good anywhere, and certainly if we aren't engaged in endless warfare abroad as a result of the reflection, I think America can handle 4 years of weirdness. Where's that good ol' American sense of adventure, huh?

Business and Finance experience is important. Hell, even in a non-monetary society, people still have to account for things. But unfortunately business and finance experience rarely gives people a familiarity with the experiences of those whose experiences are not an easy function of quantitative assessment.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unlikely.

Sanders has about the same odds of winning as Hu Jintao.

As we are all aware, the POTUS is not the only wielder of power, nor would anyone expect Bernie Sanders to get even half of the things he'd like to get done, done. Even if he did, such a proposition would have to be channeled through a litany of people are do have such experiences. Presumably the POTUS is not aware of all thing possible things affecting a nation, yet makes decisions anyways presumably with the help of a White House staff that exists far beyond just the president.

The point is a symbolic one. The symbol is that of a disenfranchised population, who are now all employed, but whose wages have gone at all, in any measurement with inflation adjusted, that are pretty much willing to take one of the few remaining means of actually being heard. Also sort of a one last ditch effort to at least attempt to spread any good anywhere, and certainly if we aren't engaged in endless warfare abroad as a result of the reflection, I think America can handle 4 years of weirdness. Where's that good ol' American sense of adventure, huh?

Business and Finance experience is important. Hell, even in a non-monetary society, people still have to account for things. But unfortunately business and finance experience rarely gives people a familiarity with the experiences of those whose experiences are not an easy function of quantitative assessment.

Empty symbolism......Sanders is looking more & more like Dubya, Hillary & Obama.

 

[dust1n]

Sanders has about the same odds of winning as Hu Jintao.

I think my original source of betting odds for the next US president is sufficient evidence that Sanders has a slightly better chance of winning than Hu Jintao.

Empty symbolism......Sanders is looking more & more like Dubya, Hillary & Obama.

How so?

 

[Revoltingest]

I think my original source of betting odds for the next US president is sufficient evidence that Sanders has a slightly better chance of winning as Hu Jintao.

Rounding to the nearest percent, they're both zero.

How so?

His talk of 90% tax rates, if symbolic, is empty because it doesn't address the whole tax policy & economy of the times. It's as ludicrous as saying we should bring back slavery because there were no nuclear weapons when it was legal.

 

[dust1n]

Rounding to the nearest percent, they're both zero.

In what application would someone find it acceptable to round to the nearest percent? Sloppy craftsmanship if you ask me.

His talk of 90% tax rates, if symbolic, is empty because it doesn't address the whole tax policy & economy of the times. It's as ludicrous as saying we should bring back slavery because there were no nuclear weapons when it was legal here.

EDIT (something weird happened Like I eluded to, I think the position is not one of providing a specific number, but an illustration that taxes can be and have been higher.

The criticism is fair, but given how impressively not in-depth television news, it's not really surprising that things are reduced to sound bites. As far as taxation is concerned, I'd expect a form of the law of diminishing returns to apply to taxation and government revenue to occur somewhere far sooner than a tax rate of 90%, unless that 90% was allocated to incomes exceeding a billion or something.

 

[Willamena]

I have to ask: is he related to The Colonel?

They do look alike--but perhaps all old men do.

 

[Wannabe Yogi..]

Bernie has been my favorite American politician for years. I don't know if he could win. But, I remember a day when many believed that Ronald Reagan was why to conservative to be elected. Why not someone way to much of a socialist. Bernie is a old cramegen who is truthful. Yes that's right, a truthful politician. Who would have thought it that's possible. Click on link below if you need to discover new ways of
Talking to your kids about such an contradiction.
How to Talk to Your Kids About Bernie Sanders — Medium

 

[Revoltingest]

In what application would someone find it acceptable to round to the nearest percent? Sloppy craftsmanship if you ask me.

Rounding to the nearest tenth of a percent.....zero for both.

EDIT (something weird happened Like I eluded to, I think the position is not one of providing a specific number, but an illustration that taxes can be and have been higher.

We know the marginal rates were higher, but how do you know taxes (as in higher average rates, ie, percent of taxable income) were higher?

The criticism is fair, but given how impressively not in-depth television news, it's not really surprising that things are reduced to sound bites.

Selective sound bite brevity shows some mix of dishonesty & lack of understanding.
But does his more considered exposition clear this up?

As far as taxation is concerned, I'd expect a form of the law of diminishing returns to apply to taxation and government revenue to occur somewhere far sooner than a tax rate of 90%, unless that 90% was allocated to incomes exceeding a billion or something.

90% tax rates were accompanied with generous deduction schemes, effectively reducing the average rates.
But no matter what the level of income which is taxed at 90%, money in that range would either flee the country or be avoided.
Why invest money, work or take risks if government takes nearly all of the profit?

 

[dust1n]

Rounding to the nearest tenth of a percent.....zero for both.

Yeah, but rounding to the nearest thousandth of a percent, we're talking double digits here.

We know the marginal rates were higher, but how do you know taxes (as in higher average rates, ie, percent of taxable income) were higher?

I don't know, any searching seems to yield no results to accurate studies detailing all the different factors between then and now. How do you know they were lower? Perhaps that maybe the source I'm looking for.

Selective sound bite brevity shows some mix of dishonesty & lack of understanding.
But does his more considered exposition clear this up?

Probably not. So, oh no, Sanders has fallen into the category as being a flawed human being like all the other presidential candidates. I wonder where in Rand Paul's dealings with running an eye clinic as a professional clinic first turned into accurate sentiments about the state of national economics. The economy probably does work like a human eye, come to think of it. I mean maintaining a staff of 20 people must be a real enlightening process to the realm of banking, finance, manufacturing, etc.

90% tax rates were accompanied with generous deduction schemes, effectively reducing the average rates.
But no matter what the level of income which is taxed at 90%, money in that range would either flee the country or be avoided.

Why invest money, work or take risks if government takes nearly all of the profit?

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_adjusted.pdf

According to the tax-foundation, the rate of 48% applied to incomes at 103k, and 91% to income 1.4 million and above, generally in the years of the eighties. Just to clarify, that's not "nearly all." It's a lot yeah. I don't know what those comes out to if you applied all deductions taken.

As far as off-shoring money, I would expect nothing less from a business owner. They are generally the worst people I've ever met in my life, so to see one act selflessly instead in the interests in the nation they so often proclaim to love would not be surprising to me for a bit.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

The issue with the current tax code is not that it simply provides a low rate to the corporate sector and the very rich. The problem is that it is very often a null rate, sometimes even a negative rate (a rebate...see Verizon et al.). Middle-class families end up paying a higher percentage in taxes than those who make more money. How does that make sense? There's no question that we need to increase taxes on the rich; the question is how much and where should those dollars go? No one with a brain cell in their skull who actually understands what is going on could possibly disagree with that (see congressional Republicans).

Personally, I advocate revamping our healthcare system into a publicly-funded privately-serviced universal system, as well as tuition-free public higher education...like we used to have. These aren't even revolutionary ideas. They've been put into practice for decades and independent research shows--repeatedly--that systems like these have substantial advantages over our current health and education system. They'd save us money, improve the health of the population, and increase our global competitiveness.