2016 Presidential Horse Race

2016 Presidential Horse Race


  • Total voters
    183

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,271
Reaction score
2,494
That's fine and dandy when you're talking about regular wage-earners, but 70% of US businesses are sole proprietors. Sole proprietors pay their business taxes with their personal income taxes on the same 1040 as wage-earners. What you're describing is a substantial tax increase on small business owners, i.e. job creators.


Effective tax rate and average tax rate are the same thing.


See, this is the problem. People are voting for what's best for them and they don't give a shit about the underlying principles. It would be great for ME AND MY FAMILY if someone proposed a government subsidy for stay-at-home mothers. But if some politician went around promising to pay stay-at-home mothers $30,000 per year, I'd categorically oppose it.


Lmao in a country of 300 million people, 170 of them endorse Bernie Sanders. Among this list of "economic experts" are adjunct faculty at community colleges. Color me amazed.


Maybe all those sole proprietors should incorporate so they can be taxed at 0%. That's a joke. I honestly don't know that much about taxes on sole prop, LLCs, etc. Some but not enough. I've been following Bernie for awhile and my gut tells me you're not the only person to bring up that topic. I'd like to try and track down some quotes from him on the subject.

My other post was in reference to your comment about Bernie supporters never taken an econ class. Bernie does do well with younger voters, but it's not his entire demographic. He has wide support, and yes some of them may have taken an econ class or two.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
Can I ask you Bernie supporters an honest question?
-Why do you support a candidate that clearly shows no knowledge of economics or money in general?

Bit of a loaded question, isn't it?

Which candidate should we support -- the billionaire real estate mogal who has sent multiple businesses into bankruptcy? Or the guy who cost millions of government workers to lose income because he decided to throw a temper tantrum over Obamacare? Perhaps we should support the woman who was fired after tanking her company, or the guy who was the governor when the energy sector decided to make Ohio its fracking playground and rescued his economy. Or should we pick the guy who just delivers rehearsed sound bite answers and gets knocked off his message when the heat gets turned up about his flip flopping on immigration.

Or should we pick the other democratic candidate who won't release the transcripts of her speeches she made to Goldman Sachs because they were to rah rah about how great the financial giant is and that runs contratry to her campaign's message about how she's going to get tough of the financial sector.

Whether you think Bernie knows anything about economics or not (sort of a laughable accusation), he wants the government to work for the people an not special interests. He knows enough about money to understand that with it comes immense power, and that power is being used to stack the deck against the average Joe in America. I support Bernie because he is the only candidate that shows any real authenticity, and he cares about people. You should ask the same question about other candidates, because I'd really be interested to see how anyone would support a bigot like Trump; or an unauthentic ideologue putz like Cruz; a certifiable whack job like Carson; a waivering sound bite machine like Marco Rubio; or a faux tough guy like Chris Christie.
 

DomeX2 eNVy

New member
Messages
1,354
Reaction score
66
Current totals from Dixville Knotch; Hart's Location; and Millsfield:

(D)
Sanders: 17 - 60.7%
Clinton: 9 - 32.1%
Greenstein 2 - 7.1% ( I have no idea who this person is either - Mark Stewart Greenstein)

(R)
Cruz: 9 - 24.3%
Trump: 9 - 24.3%
Kasich: 9 - 24.3%
Christie: 3 - 8.1%
Bush: 2 - 5.4%
Rubio: 2 - 5.4%
Fiorina: 1 - 2.7%
Carson: 1 - 2.7%
Paul: 1 - 2.7% (some people won't take 'no' for an answer)
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,008
Bit of a loaded question, isn't it?

Which candidate should we support -- the billionaire real estate mogal who has sent multiple businesses into bankruptcy? Or the guy who cost millions of government workers to lose income because he decided to throw a temper tantrum over Obamacare? Perhaps we should support the woman who was fired after tanking her company, or the guy who was the governor when the energy sector decided to make Ohio its fracking playground and rescued his economy. Or should we pick the guy who just delivers rehearsed sound bite answers and gets knocked off his message when the heat gets turned up about his flip flopping on immigration.

Or should we pick the other democratic candidate who won't release the transcripts of her speeches she made to Goldman Sachs because they were to rah rah about how great the financial giant is and that runs contratry to her campaign's message about how she's going to get tough of the financial sector.

Whether you think Bernie knows anything about economics or not (sort of a laughable accusation), he wants the government to work for the people an not special interests. He knows enough about money to understand that with it comes immense power, and that power is being used to stack the deck against the average Joe in America. I support Bernie because he is the only candidate that shows any real authenticity, and he cares about people. You should ask the same question about other candidates, because I'd really be interested to see how anyone would support a bigot like Trump; or an unauthentic ideologue putz like Cruz; a certifiable whack job like Carson; a waivering sound bite machine like Marco Rubio; or a faux tough guy like Chris Christie.

Because they are not trying to turn The United States of America into The United States of Scandinavia.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
See, this is the problem. People are voting for what's best for them and they don't give a shit about the underlying principles. .

Are you suggesting that people should vote for something that is worse for them personally? Our entire system of government -- one person, one vote -- is designed for people to vote according to their own self interest. What you see as "the problem," I see as the solution. This is what Bernie talks about when he speaks of a "revolution." Stop listening to the talking heads and corrupted, special interest-tainted politicians who will benefit if you do as they say, and start voting for your self interest. Elected officials do not remain in office for 50 years. If their policies cause harm, voters can and should change their minds and go in another direction the next election. Politicians who want to stay in office should be held accountable by voters to deliver. As it stands now, we've been listening to the same people promote the same failed economic policies for more than three decades. No wonder people are pissed off and looking to alternative candidates.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
They didn't get paid until the dispute was settled. They went over month without a paycheck.
Sucks.

A month-long vacation with the only stipulation being that I'll be paid a few weeks late? Sign me up every time. It's not Ted Cruz' fault if people are too shit at managing their finances that they can't survive a quick blip in their cash flow.
 

beryirish

Dry Land Is Not A Myth!
Messages
5,949
Reaction score
539
They didn't get paid until the dispute was settled. They went over month without a paycheck.

I understand.

Different topic:

If America would learn how to budget/prioritize and not try to keep up with the Jones's then having your paycheck postponed one month shouldn't be a problem.

Too many people living beyond their means now days.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Are you suggesting that people should vote for something that is worse for them personally?
Yes.

Our entire system of government -- one person, one vote -- is designed for people to vote according to their own self interest.
That's not our system of government. We're not a democracy and we never have been. Read up on "tyranny of the majority." Further, voting is supposed to be based on enlightened self-interest, not greed. 60% of people voting selfishly could vote to tax the rest of the population at 100% and redistribute it. That's not a good thing.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
You have no idea what you are talking about. I am one of "those people" who lost income, and there wasn't any back pay for time that we missed.
Are you a contractor? Because every federal employee was paid. If you're a contractor, it's not Ted Cruz' fault that you didn't understand what being a contractor entails.
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
Sucks.

A month-long vacation with the only stipulation being that I'll be paid a few weeks late? Sign me up every time. It's not Ted Cruz' fault if people are too shit at managing their finances that they can't survive a quick blip in their cash flow.

Many people still had to work and for the people who live paycheck to paycheck it was devastating. Lots of late payments on mortgages and credit cards and overdrawn checking accounts. You're right though, who gives a shit about those people.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Many people still had to work and for the people who live paycheck to paycheck it was devastating. Lots of late payments on mortgages and credit cards and overdrawn checking accounts. You're right though, who gives a shit about those people.
Again, it's not Ted Cruz' fault that people live paycheck to paycheck. That's THEIR fault. Solution: live within your means. Save money when times are good in case times go bad. It's not that hard.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
You're right, that chart is only for income taxes.

Bernie wants to raise the cap on Soc Sec to $250,000. No where have I seen that he's going to raise the SS tax rate. It's currently 6.2% on the first $118,500.

State taxes, as you said, will depend on which state you live in. Seven states pay no state income tax, seven states have a flat tax rate of around 5% or less, and outside of CA/HI/OR the marginal tax rates are below 10% (way below that in some).

Medicare for all will be another payroll tax. 6.2% will fall on the employer and 2.2% will fall on the employee. (But people always fail to understand the savings on premiums, deductibles, co-pays, prescriptions, etc. It's important to note those savings).

Your magic number of 73% is sort of correct: 1) It's literally only for deca-millionaires in CA and 2) the 6.2% isn't on the 10s of millions, it's on the first $250,000. The effective SS rate on deca millionaires is 0.155%. So add up 52% fed income, 13.3% state income, 2.2% medicare, and 0.155% social security and that magic number is actually 67.66%....again, for the highest income earners in CA. Factor in healthcare cost savings and that number will be a little lower.

It's funny because the media is throwing out 70%, 80%, 90% tax rates like candy to get everyone to believe that's what will happen. Not only is it not true, but they don't inform people 1) cumulative taxes and 2) how to figure out what you'll pay. I get so pissed when I hear some schmuck who works for minimum wage say "I'm not paying 90% in taxes because of some socialist!" I just shake my head.

My cumulative marginal tax rate will be around 40%. The effective rate will be much lower. The average rate even lower. And my wife and I make more than double the average household income in this country.

Don't want to get into the minute details, but Sanders proposed lifting the cap on social security. So, in effect (not arguing if it is fair or not) that is a marginal tax increase for anyone making over $118K a year. What you have there is a mix of marginal and effective. The marginal increase is real, whether we agree it is a fair increase or not. That is why you are falling short of the 73%. Also, there are many municipalities & counties across the country that levy income taxes, which not included in your figure. For example, all Maryland counties have an income tax, which I believe ranges from 1.25% up to 3%.

And while those figures above are marginal rates, the effective rate will be just as large as an increase. Why? The social security increase will impact people, treating capital gains as ordinary income with increased marginal rates will increase effective rates as will further restricting deductions for those making over $250K.

Finally, the 73% is magical because it is what Diamond and Saez believed would be the optimum rate to maximize revenues on the top end while curbing top level "greed". There were many assumptions that went into that theory, including ETI. It's a theory and like all theories, some agree and some disagree. The key disagreement is that the 73% looks at it from a pure utility perspective of the whole (all Americans) and what utility means is open for debate. In any event, the 73% takes into consideration ETI, which means it stunts growth of income (to an extent) for those impacted. Thus, assuming 73% top marginal tax rate WITHOUT a change income growth (which is what I mentioned in my prior post) would lead to a failed model on Sanders side.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/strengthen-and-expand-social-security/
 
Last edited:

Veritate Duce Progredi

A man gotta have a code
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,352
I won't answer for Bernie supports on this board, but I think for most Bernie supporters out in the world, the answer is that they have no knowledge of economics or money either.

Bernie's supporters are millennials and college students. They've never made a household budget, and the vast majority have never taken an economics course.

Wrong on both counts and I would contend I out-earn many on this board based on the interwebz tools.

According to some cool internet tool, I'm in the 96-98% of earners for my age group. Bernie's plans would likely affect my income, if not immediately, certainly down the road.

I don't post any of this to boast but to point to the fact that your broad brush isn't painting an accurate picture, it's smearing shit on a canvas.

Bernie is the only candidate that doesn't appear to be in bed with the devil. The likely joke on us will be him gaining the presidential seat and being hamstrung by an ineffectual house and senate, virtually eliminating his proposed measures.

If there were a legitimate candidate on the right that wanted to decentralize government power and bring it back to the states and communities and didn't want to "carpet bomb" the middle east and didn't have hawkish views on most international and border affairs, then they'd likely get my vote. Most of them align with my pro-life stance defacto.

But the expansion of healthcare and reduction of education expenses through greater taxation doesn't cause me to worry about "big government". I believe those changes alleviate or reduce two issues in our country.

I believe Paul was the right's best chance at something different, everyone else fighting for the GOP ticket is more of the same. The same can be said of Hillary. And sadly, with my limited understanding of this world, Bernie's platform is the most appealing because it's the most divergent from the norm.
 
Last edited:

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
Again, it's not Ted Cruz' fault that people live paycheck to paycheck. That's THEIR fault. Solution: live within your means. Save money when times are good in case times go bad. It's not that hard.

It is Ted Cruz's fault that he shut down the government

Also it isn't those peoples fault that Ted Cruz shut down the government.

Also you are quite the compassionate person, just fuck the people living paycheck to paycheck as they deserve it.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Also you are quite the compassionate person, just fuck the people living paycheck to paycheck as they deserve it.
Absolutely the opposite. The way to help people living paycheck to paycheck is economic growth. The way to KEEP people living paycheck to paycheck is socialism and government dependency.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FPiZS1v47b4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
Again, it's not Ted Cruz' fault that people live paycheck to paycheck. That's THEIR fault. Solution: live within your means. Save money when times are good in case times go bad. It's not that hard.

Man, what a dickish view of the whole situation. Nothing is Cruz's fault even though he led the charge to shut down the government. It's the fault of people who live within their means but need their paychecks to do that, and its the fault of people who work as contractors who should have somehow known that some asshole was going to actively work to shut down the government and screw them over.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Man, what a dickish view of the whole situation. Nothing is Cruz's fault even though he led the charge to shut down the government. It's the fault of people who live within their means but need their paychecks to do that, and its the fault of people who work as contractors who should have somehow known that some asshole was going to actively work to shut down the government and screw them over.
Are you kidding me? That's what being a contract worker means. You know the risks when you sign up. It's like quitting a steady position with a strong company to go work for a startup. You weigh the risks and benefits, and decide accordingly. You don't get to bitch and moan when the risks come true because they were known or should have reasonably been known going in.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
Are you kidding me? That's what being a contract worker means. You know the risks when you sign up. It's like quitting a steady position with a strong company to go work for a startup. You weigh the risks and benefits, and decide accordingly. You don't get to bitch and moan when the risks come true because they were known or should have reasonably been known going in.

We hire contractors because the positions they fill may not be needed a few years from now, but they are needed right now. They are more expensive in the short run, but keep us from having to hire full time employees and pay into pension funds and long term benefits. They are sort of like "temps" hired to work on specific projects and they go away when the project is complete or cancelled, etc. What you are describing is not an accurate picture of what happened. The need for these people did not go away because Cruz decided to be a ideologue turd. These people just got blindsided. We still needed the work to be done, but Cruz's antics made that impossible, putting many, many projects across the government on hold while he thumped his chest about being the true fiscal conservative (all while costing the goverment boatloads of money.)
 
Last edited:

FightingIrishLover7

All troll, no substance
Messages
12,704
Reaction score
7,516
Again, it's not Ted Cruz' fault that people live paycheck to paycheck. That's THEIR fault. Solution: live within your means. Save money when times are good in case times go bad. It's not that hard.
I have a good paying job, paying off loans, and being a "model citizen" (whatever the fuck that means).

But, I know so many hard working people down on their luck and fighting their asses off to scrap by.

I'm not going to go into further explanation for why you're a dick, because you're honestly not worth my time of day with a comment like that.
 
Last edited:

Black Irish

Wise Guy
Messages
3,770
Reaction score
603
Are you suggesting that people should vote for something that is worse for them personally? Our entire system of government -- one person, one vote -- is designed for people to vote according to their own self interest. What you see as "the problem," I see as the solution. This is what Bernie talks about when he speaks of a "revolution." Stop listening to the talking heads and corrupted, special interest-tainted politicians who will benefit if you do as they say, and start voting for your self interest. Elected officials do not remain in office for 50 years. If their policies cause harm, voters can and should change their minds and go in another direction the next election. Politicians who want to stay in office should be held accountable by voters to deliver. As it stands now, we've been listening to the same people promote the same failed economic policies for more than three decades. No wonder people are pissed off and looking to alternative candidates.

Is there a difference, in your mind, between self-interest and special interest? To me, the are virtually the same. If you support a candidate or lobby a politician to do something that benefits you personally, and likely to detriment of another sector of the population, you are pushing for a special interest. Yours. It's the same thing in principle to a union or corporation or lobbying group that throws money and support to a politician. The difference, of course, is scale. Unless there are enough individuals with the same special interest who form a group to push that agenda at national level. Then you have AARP, NRA, NARAL, etc, and those groups can flex their muscles just as well as Fortune 500 companies.

But the recent college graduate who wants his six figure student loan debt cancelled, therefore screwing whatever financial institution issued that debt, isn't any better than the corporation who lobbies to keep tax loopholes open so they can pay a laughably small amount of income tax. In both cases, selfishness is at play. The Sanders crowd would like us to pity the college grad and forgive his debt because of misplaced sticking-up-for-the-little-guy rhetoric. The tax-dodging corporation is at least providing jobs to people. The forgive-my-student-debt crowd isn't doing anyone a damn bit of good, except themselves, by trying to weasel out of debt that they knowingly and willingly assumed.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
Bullshit. All those people got paid.

Yup. They basically got a month long deferred pay vacation on the tax payer's dime. But for people/families where all the earners were Government employees, it got very stressful/dicey for a bit there as it dragged on.

At least I had really good traffic for a couple weeks.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
But, I know so many hard working people down on their luck and fighting their asses off to scrap by.

I'm not going to go into further explanation for why you're a dick, because you're honestly not worth my time of day with a comment like that.
I love this. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any government program in the history of mankind. Capitalism is beautiful because it helps the poor. Government programs keep poor people alive. They also keep poor people poor. But it's the capitalist that hates the poor.
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
Yup. They basically got a month long deferred pay vacation on the tax payer's dime. But for people/families where all the earners were Government employees, it got very stressful/dicey for a bit there as it dragged on.

At least I had really good traffic for a couple weeks.

Don't forget that a lot of people had to work for that month without getting paid during that time (yes they got paid later but that still sucks).
 

FightingIrishLover7

All troll, no substance
Messages
12,704
Reaction score
7,516
I understand.

Different topic:

If America would learn how to budget/prioritize and not try to keep up with the Jones's then having your paycheck postponed one month shouldn't be a problem.

Too many people living beyond their means now days.

Lifestyle inflation =/= average wage increase.

That's my rationale for why you have the situation many Americans are facing. My grandparents generation was able to make a damn good living in the factories. They were able save, while blowing money on cars, vacations, etc.

Their kids thought they could have all of that too, but they were wrong. Those jobs went bye-bye, but their thirst for their parents lifestyle did not.

My generation (24 years old), can see where our grandparents had it made, where our parents messed up, and can see the corporate pigs that got away with exploiting the system to the point where we're at today.

With that said, of course hard work still pays off. I'm making a living, seem to be on a good trajectory, but I know the deck is more stacked against America than it has been since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And yes, I'm one of those "pissed off" millennials, but I am certainly not "entitled, lazy, or needy" (or whatever stereotypes you want to throw my way). I simply want a just workforce. And don't tell me that breaks "economic models", because I know more than my fair share of economics. It's worked before, and can work again.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Lifestyle inflation =/= average wage increase.

That's my rationale for why you have the situation many Americans are facing. My grandparents generation was able to make a damn good living in the factories. They were able save, while blowing money on cars, vacations, etc.

Their kids thought they could have all of that too, but they were wrong. Those jobs went bye-bye, but their thirst for their parents lifestyle did not.

My generation (24 years old), can see where our grandparents had it made, where our parents messed up, and can see the corporate pigs that got away with exploiting the system to the point where we're at today.

With that said, of course hard work still pays off. I'm making a living, seem to be on a good trajectory, but I know the deck is more stacked against America than it has been since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And yes, I'm one of those "pissed off" millennials, but I am certainly not "entitled, lazy, or needy" (or whatever stereotypes you want to throw my way). I simply want a just workforce. And don't tell me that breaks "economic models", because I know more than my fair share of economics. It's worked before, and can work again.
I hear you. But people are looking for the government to solve those problems while it's the government that created many of them.
 

FightingIrishLover7

All troll, no substance
Messages
12,704
Reaction score
7,516
I love this. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any government program in the history of mankind. Capitalism is beautiful because it helps the poor. Government programs keep poor people alive. They also keep poor people poor. But it's the capitalist that hates the poor.

Capitalism is a "fast and dirty" way to stimulate an economy (and nation). It's a literary wild-wild west economic model. Once the banker has all the money, the game is no longer fair. And we're quickly approaching that point. Especially when you have some people that want to REMOVE our already established social programs and benefits. If and when that happens, how is the government still "helping the poor"?
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Capitalism is a "fast and dirty" way to stimulate an economy (and nation). It's a literary wild-wild west economic model. Once the banker has all the money, the game is no longer fair. And we're quickly approaching that point. Especially when you have some people that want to REMOVE our already established social programs and benefits. If and when that happens, how is the government still "helping the poor"?
What we have today is not real capitalism. Real capitalism is a natural order that arises two principles: private property rights and free association. That's it.
 
Top