Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also think only people college should be free for is our U.S. military service men and women. Additionally, Native Americans living on a reservation should have the opportunity for free education. Also EMS, Healthcare worker's, Police Officers, and Firefighters should be allowed 25% to 50% discounted from their tution in a field related to their work. Additionally, any volunteer EMT/Firefighter or any volunteer in general...volunteers receive a voucher say you did 100 8 hour shifts equals 800. Then double that 800 they receive a $1600 voucher for college. Medical Doctor program's are free, offer free housing, and free food. However, must volunteer twice a month in a clinic throughout the program. If you drop out or fail have to pay back 50% of the cost of the program. Finally any parent mom dad with 2 or more kid's receive a 15% college discount.
Forgot to add one more thing anyone who has outstanding college loans 10+ year's clear them away and erase the debt.
MYTH: The costs will be passed on to average investors.
FACT: A fee of a fraction of a percent would make little difference to a person who intends to hold
onto stocks as a long-term investment. For example, an FTT of 1/20 of a percent would cost investors
buying $10,000 of stock only $5 when they purchase their shares.
That lists the law's requirements, not an exception. So it is in fact true that John and Jane America's pension funds and retirement accounts would pay the same tax as hedge fund managers.
That lists the law's requirements, not an exception. So it is in fact true that John and Jane America's pension funds and retirement accounts would pay the same tax as hedge fund managers.
Yes, that's why that pretty much every economist that has a track record of standing up for seniors support it. Right wing economists on the other hand who constantly talk about gutting social security and medicare are against it. I am sure which camp you are on, as you continue to gun for the destruction of the middle class and tirelessly carry the water for the rich.
Huh? Did you catch the part of your quote where it says that "a fee of a fraction of a percent would make little difference to a person who intends to hold onto stocks as a long term investor"? If you are against the FTT you should really try to find a source that supports rather than destroys your supposition.
I am for it. In general, I am for anything that reduces the share of the financial industry in the GDP. The growth of this industry from the 70s onwards goes hand in hand with bigger financial crises and the weakening of the middle class. Its turning into a parasite on our economy and needs to be scaled back and let real productive investments take its place.
Yes, that's why that pretty much every economist that has a track record of standing up for seniors support it. Right wing economists on the other hand who constantly talk about gutting social security and medicare are against it. I am sure which camp you are on, as you continue to gun for the destruction of the middle class and tirelessly carry the water for the rich.
They also support Scandinavia's and Europe's regressive taxes, and their lack of FATCA laws. Are you on board with implementing a regressive tax system and repealing FATCA?
Yep, no such thing as a free lunch and you better believe a country with 300 million people will have a lot more waste than a country like Denmark with 5 million people, so the thought that we can do the same as Denmark at a fraction of the cost is completely unrealistic and just plain stupid.
You ignored the comment about how currently we do actually tax enough to cover the costs, but would have to readjust how we spend it (I'm aware the Bernie will likely also make other social programs bigger, which will mean more taxes, but not with the increase you're predicting). That alone tells me that getting involved in this discussion is meaningless. I'll let you ponder on what was already said.
Not moving anything. I've said all along that Scandinavian and European countries have REGRESSIVE tax systems, unlike the U.S.
THIS is what you claimed:
Quote:
Originally Posted by straight shooter
Look at Germany. They pay 50-60% in income tax and you have to be well-off to have a car there. None of the people that make less the $35,000 a year here would have a car in Germany or any of the Scandinavian countries. I don't think many of the people that are in favor of free college tuition are willing to give up their cars and many other items that they take for granted to pay for an increase in taxes.
I demonstrated the inaccuracy of your claim and you responded with a comment about regressive taxation which is certainly your right, but it also is indicative of moving the goal post
THIS is what you claimed:
I proved you were wrong and you switched to a discussion of regressive taxation.
Have you not noted you posted quotes from 2 different people?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
