U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-10-2019, 07:19 AM
 
Location: New Jersey
5,839 posts, read 3,052,146 times
Reputation: 6844

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowel View Post
The question I have about that is how can good behavior (creating high quality (both in terms of competitive pay and the way employees are treated) USA jobs and keeping them here and providing affordable goods and services to people in the USA) while not rewarding bad behavior (moving jobs overseas, abusive practices among some employers, etc.). That seems to be the challenging question.

Even if Bernie Sanders doesn't have the best solutions to do this, most of the problems and disparities he brings up are still valid problems that need to be worked through in a constructive non-partisan way, regardless of who ends up in office.
Don't be fooled by the rhetorics of the likes of Bernie. His ideas are wack and will not lead to any of those utopian workplaces. It will just wreck it.

The world is becoming very competitive. If someone else can do it faster and cheaper, then they will get the business/work. If you have to pay a U.S. worker $25 an hour to make the same thing someone in Mexico or Vietnam will do it for at $2.50 an hour, then that job will go to Mexico and Vietnam.

By taxing the U.S. company extra higher, they'd just move their operations to a lower tax country and you'd lose the corporate jobs as well.

What part of this is so hard to understand?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-10-2019, 07:40 AM
 
Location: New Jersey
5,839 posts, read 3,052,146 times
Reputation: 6844
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
My examples included amazon and health insurance. Care to explain how those two corporate entities with their record breaking profits are being competed with by “almost everyone”.

Look you clearly like the Fox News talking points, oft repeated by the corporation loving republicans, but they don’t hold up to even the simplest of inspection.
Amazon is primarily a retailer. They are not necessarily a driver of the economy but more of a "passenger" if you will. Retailers do well when the economy is good because people are more willing to spend. They don't do well if the economy is bad because people will be less likely to spend.

Amazon's business is primarily within the U.S. Their competition are other domestic retailers. If they failed, other domestic retailers would just pick up their business. In other words, they are not that critical to the economy.

As for health insurance, we are still working under Obamacare. I thought you Leftist were so sure this was going to fix our healthcare. How's that working out?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 07:45 AM
 
Location: North Carolina
3,045 posts, read 2,108,322 times
Reputation: 6234
Quote:
Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
Don't be fooled by the rhetorics of the likes of Bernie. His ideas are wack and will not lead to any of those utopian workplaces. It will just wreck it.

The world is becoming very competitive. If someone else can do it faster and cheaper, then they will get the business/work. If you have to pay a U.S. worker $25 an hour to make the same thing someone in Mexico or Vietnam will do it for at $2.50 an hour, then that job will go to Mexico and Vietnam.

By taxing the U.S. company extra higher, they'd just move their operations to a lower tax country and you'd lose the corporate jobs as well.

What part of this is so hard to understand?
As stated previously (please reread my post), I don't think many of Bernie Sanders' solutions, in the manner that he sees them being implemented, are particularly practical or wise to implement and anyway, I don't see people outside of a handful of states like Vermont and Hawaii voting for him even if he ran. Also, as I said, it's a tricky task to create a tax system that doesn't reward bad behavior from corporations but doesn't reward good companies from packing up and going to a cheap country. If it were that simple in a huge country like the US, and free from corruption and dark money, some of the ideas that Sanders talks about in terms of quality of life improvements for US citizens (which should be a shared interest) would have materialized more than they have.

Much of what he talks about would simply shift the balance of who gets favorable tax credit from one group to another and the people who would be losing out because of his vision are the ones who actively discredit him. Saying there aren't already some people who gain much more from the tax system that what they contribute (and many of them are politically conservative themselves) is a myth. For instance, there are a lot of people who are drawing much more than they ever contributed to social security, but this is likely not going to be the case for younger people who Sanders wants to help by subsidizing their education. It's just shifting who is getting the subsidy.

With this said, the issues he often cites, such as pharmaceutical companies charging astronomical rates for prescriptions in the US compared to other countries and, often due to lack of US consumer protection, some employers who engage in abusive practices with employees due to weak protections of employees, the goal of making education (whether that's a four year degree or trade school) more affordable to encourage a well educated, productive to society citizenry, are all still very valid points.

But the three most important issues are implementation, implementation, and implementation and I'm concerned the way that would be handled under his vision are shaky.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 07:47 AM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
33,593 posts, read 20,452,379 times
Reputation: 13192
I agree with op 100%

In addition to that, I'd say that there are about 60 or so offshore jurisdictions around the world to choose from if the super rich wanted to hide their money. They include places like Switzerland, the Channel Islands and Liechtenstein, but many are in the Caribbean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 07:54 AM
 
2,210 posts, read 813,646 times
Reputation: 2414
His plan is essentially to force the middle class to pay for stuff they don’t need or want and in the process take their freedoms away. The tax rates the rich pay in Northern Europe aren’t that much different than what ours pay they have so many deductions and loopholes but the taxes their poor and middle class pay are much higher than ours. If you look at the states with the largest middle classes there’s a couple trends A. They’re red or purple states(New Hampshire, Colorado, North Dakota, Utah, Arizona, Iowa) with low taxes and progrowth policies B. They have high rates of ownership in general(business ownership, home ownership, stock/bond ownership, etc) what you want is low unemployment, strong growth and ownership of things so that everyone enjoys the fruits of the growth. His plans are antithetical to the middle class. Will help some lower class people who are unable or unwilling to work but would hurt middle class for sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 07:56 AM
 
Location: New Jersey
5,839 posts, read 3,052,146 times
Reputation: 6844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowel View Post
As stated previously (please reread my post), I don't think many of Bernie Sanders' solutions, in the manner that he sees them being implemented, are particularly practical or wise to implement and anyway, I don't see people outside of a handful of states like Vermont and Hawaii voting for him even if he ran. Also, as I said, it's a tricky task to create a tax system that doesn't reward bad behavior from corporations but doesn't reward good companies from packing up and going to a cheap country. If it were that simple in a huge country like the US, and free from corruption and dark money, some of the ideas that Sanders talks about in terms of quality of life improvements for US citizens (which should be a shared interest) would have materialized more than they have.

Much of what he talks about would simply shift the balance of who gets favorable tax credit from one group to another and the people who would be losing out because of his vision are the ones who actively discredit him. Saying there aren't already some people who gain much more from the tax system that what they contribute (and many of them are politically conservative themselves) is a myth. For instance, there are a lot of people who are drawing much more than they ever contributed to social security, but this is likely not going to be the case for younger people who Sanders wants to help by subsidizing their education. It's just shifting who is getting the subsidy.

With this said, the issues he often cites, such as pharmaceutical companies charging astronomical rates for prescriptions in the US compared to other countries and, often due to lack of US consumer protection, some employers who engage in abusive practices with employees due to weak protections of employees, the goal of making education (whether that's a four year degree or trade school) more affordable to encourage a well educated, productive to society citizenry, are all still very valid points.

But the three most important issues are implementation, implementation, and implementation and I'm concerned the way that would be handled under his vision are shaky.
First let me address your pharmaceutical point. You make it sound like Bernie is the first one to talk about this . Trump talked about this and is actually doing something about it. What exactly is Bernie going to do differently? Knowing his draconian ideology, he'll just pass punitive laws that will create other problems. That's what Leftists / Democrats do. They just pass more laws that create other unintended problems. They never really solve any problems.

You keep on talking about not rewarding bad behavior and rewarding good behavior. What exactly do you have in mind? You really have to elaborate. If it's anything like what Bernie wants, he's basically going to equally punish successful companies and individuals (because well, success means they are making money and in his world, making money means you need to be punished) and give it to people who don't do anything or whose ideas are failures because, failing means you don't make good money and hence he will give you money for failing.

Play this out over the entire country over a bunch of years and you have Venezuela. Only fools would choose Venezuela over what we have now, which is the richest country in the history of the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 08:08 AM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
33,593 posts, read 20,452,379 times
Reputation: 13192
Earlier I posted,

I agree with op 100%

In addition to that, I'd say that there are about 60 or so offshore jurisdictions around the world to choose from if the super rich wanted to hide their money. They include places like Switzerland, the Channel Islands and Liechtenstein, but many are in the Caribbean.

I want to add something here, I think Sander's idea of taxing the "rich" = taxing the solid middle or upper middle class. Like the business owners, doctors, lawyers, professionals, etc, etc, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 08:09 AM
 
2,210 posts, read 813,646 times
Reputation: 2414
A couple things to note when you’re looking at government programs. What are the administrative costs of the program? Remember you need to pay very expensive federal union employees to administer these program you’re not just taking money from some people and giving it to others. Are these programs sustainable? Remember it’s not just 1 or even 10 years these programs are forever. What are the effects of less/no competition? Competition is he best tool to keep quality high and prices in check. What are the effects of greater demand? For example If I have some minor injury like an ingrown toenail or a tooth ache right now I will probably just tend to it myself to save money, but if seeing a doctor was “free” I would absolutely just go to the hospital. The margins are very tight in some of these industries he wants to socialize, health insurance margins are only about 2-4% for example, it will absolutely cost us MORE if government administratered it. That’s why states look at privatization when trying to save money, it’s less expensive (and often better quality) even with someone/people profiting.

Last edited by cttransplant85; 08-10-2019 at 08:24 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 08:12 AM
 
5,497 posts, read 2,933,651 times
Reputation: 9987
Republicans are just as terrible at math.. they claim to be fiscally responsible and better stewards of the tax payer funds; but they have produced the worst budgets in history while continue to manipulate interest rates lower to increase our leverage rates.

I no longer trust or have faith in either party to run our country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 08:23 AM
 
2,210 posts, read 813,646 times
Reputation: 2414
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native View Post
Republicans are just as terrible at math.. they claim to be fiscally responsible and better stewards of the tax payer funds; but they have produced the worst budgets in history while continue to manipulate interest rates lower to increase our leverage rates.

I no longer trust or have faith in either party to run our country.
Compare long term fiscal health/sustainability between red states and blue states you will find the red states are in far better shape; both in debt levels and unfunded liabilities. At the federal level it’s politically impossible to cut spending on “mandatory” items; social security for example has like an 85% public approval rating. If you’re saying we should raise taxes there’s no guarantee it will result in higher revenues in the long run, people can move their money around, move their companies off shore, it will definitely be growth negative, etc. you’ll cause capital flight with much higher taxes and an aggressive IRS. The democrats are totally out of control with spending we would never be able to afford all these programs, they’d be totally unsustainable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top