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 08-11-2019, 12:03 PM
 
2,359 posts, read 689,856 times
Reputation: 1991

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post

Its literally in your own post, he will tax corporations. Amazon literally paid nothing in corporate taxes in 2018, which would have been billions in that year alone, and that is even before raising corporate tax rates to the level they were in the 1950s. Meanwhile all of the other corporations that are likewise paying nothing in federal corporate taxes will be paying their fair share.
If Amazon paid no corporate income tax in 2018, it's probably attributable to the use of tax-loss carryforwards, a provision of the tax code that benefits large and small businesses alike.

It would NOT be a good idea at all to eliminate that provision of the tax code. More to the point, I haven't heard where Bernie Sanders even addresses tax-loss carryforwards, which is not too surprising, since the only paying gigs Bernie can claim are public sector billets financed by the taxpayers. His understanding of for-profit business is meager at best, and non-existent at worst.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-11-2019, 02:59 PM
 
67,294 posts, read 30,894,905 times
Reputation: 8837
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
You presented absolutely NO evidence to prove that SNAP recipients are "overeating"
In fact, I do: their MUCH higher obesity rates, as reported by the USDA. I even posted a link to the USDA report.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 03:07 PM
 
67,294 posts, read 30,894,905 times
Reputation: 8837
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Businesses pass on costs to consumers, but the opposite doesn't happen when taxes are reduced, they do not cut prices unless they need to do so to gain a competitive advantage. If a tax affects an entire industry all players have the same tax burden so they are not pitted against one another.
Because of how different businesses are structured, all businesses in a sector are not similarly impacted. It's obvious you have no business experience.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 03:59 PM
 
4,250 posts, read 6,487,413 times
Reputation: 4392
What is wrong with the rich paying a larger portion of their income to taxes? Under Eisenhower the tax rate for the rich was 90%. Bernie is giving the rich a break at 50% or 70%.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...r-eisenhower-/

BTW, I am puzzled why anyone here at CD would side with the super rich. The Reagan idea of "trick down" economics never trickled even a drop and still hasn't. The recent trillion dollar tax cut to corporations and the rich mainly went to buy by their stock. It did not produce any expansion and few jobs. Of the expansion it did create most was limited to automation and robotic resulting in job cuts.
Why does this OP continue to support the rich?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 04:01 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
780 posts, read 667,050 times
Reputation: 462
I don’t think we should support the rich by providing the loopholes we do, but I also don’t think we should punish success. We’d likely be better off with lower rates but no loopholes. You pay your rate, period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 04:03 PM
 
1,670 posts, read 357,846 times
Reputation: 1978
Quote:
Originally Posted by donsabi View Post
What is wrong with the rich paying a larger portion of their income to taxes? Under Eisenhower the tax rate for the rich was 90%. Bernie is giving the rich a break at 50% or 70%.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...r-eisenhower-/

BTW, I am puzzled why anyone here at CD would side with the super rich. The Reagan idea of "trick down" economics never trickled even a drop and still hasn't. The recent trillion dollar tax cut to corporations and the rich mainly went to buy by their stock. It did not produce any expansion and few jobs. Of the expansion it did create most was limited to automation and robotic resulting in job cuts.
Why does this OP continue to support the rich?
Does Bernie also plan to bring back all the tax write-offs that existed then ?
Why discuss this from a lopsided view ? Include both sides of this equation.

.02% of filers under Eisenhower made the 80% bracket.
How many do you think hit that 90% bracket ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 04:09 PM
 
1,227 posts, read 232,699 times
Reputation: 819
Top 1% in the US has gained $23 Trillion in assets the last 40 years.
The bottom 50% has lost $ 900 Billion in assets the last 40 years.

US wages has been stagnant for 40 years.


Reagans trickle down on workers, destroyed the US middle class.



.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 04:13 PM
 
1,670 posts, read 357,846 times
Reputation: 1978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northman83 View Post
Top 1% in the US has gained $23 Trillion in assets the last 40 years.
The bottom 50% has lost $ 900 Billion in assets the last 40 years.

US wages has been stagnant for 40 years.


Reagans trickle down on workers, destroyed the US middle class.



.
We don't tax wealth. US Income Tax is on INCOME.

It's your paycheck people that pay the most taxes.
And the majority of your paycheck people are........middle class.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 04:45 PM
 
2,359 posts, read 689,856 times
Reputation: 1991
Quote:
Originally Posted by donsabi View Post

What is wrong with the rich paying a larger portion of their income to taxes? Under Eisenhower the tax rate for the rich was 90%. Bernie is giving the rich a break at 50% or 70%.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...r-eisenhower-/

BTW, I am puzzled why anyone here at CD would side with the super rich. The Reagan idea of "trick down" economics never trickled even a drop and still hasn't. The recent trillion dollar tax cut to corporations and the rich mainly went to buy by their stock. It did not produce any expansion and few jobs. Of the expansion it did create most was limited to automation and robotic resulting in job cuts.
Why does this OP continue to support the rich?
Nobody actually paid tax at those 90% marginal rates. The average tax rate was far lower. Good thing, too...if everybody had actually been paying tax at 90%, you might as well have canceled the economic future of the U.S. after 1960.

https://checkyourfact.com/2019/01/09...enhower-1950s/

As to why the average Joe-Six Pack might choose to side with the rich...Joe needs a job. And he knows that he's not going to get a job from someone who has less money than he does.

And now you know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 07:33 PM
 
Location: Boston
8,556 posts, read 2,496,004 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowel View Post
Again, I'm not sure you really read my posts but we'll try this just one more time.

1. I'm not sure where you are getting the impression that I thought Sanders it the first person to talk about drug prices because I never said that. As I mentioned earlier, I think the way he would go about addressing these issues could cause other problems. I'd like to know how Trump has made medical care and prescriptions more affordable here in the US because from both keeping up with current trends (i.e. fast inflation in drug prices, even in drugs that have been around for years such as insulin), and what I've witnessed firsthand or from others I know. Obamacare certainly didn't improve this for the vast majority of people and made some things worse, but he also inherited a lot of problems that went back decades and accelerated around the beginning of the 21st century. If Trump has come up with some brilliant plan to get this issue under control, I'd love to hear about it because as far as I know, this sector is still continuing to get more even more expensive, just as it has been regardless of what party is in the White House. And if it truly were benefiting Americans I would gladly give Trump or another Republican credit for it, just as I would a Democrat, or other party.

2. As mentioned, I think there would be problems created from Sanders' tax treatment of large corporations. I think we're on the same page there. But what I was also saying is that a philosophy that says if a company creates "X number of jobs with X favorable benefits, and X economic impact it gets" y (which is favorable tax treatment) vs. a company that bleeds US jobs and treats its workers like disposable crud. Rewarding good behavior. As I mentioned, this is no easy implementation task to ensure that the jobs don't leave, but intelligent economic policy needs to keep US citizen/taxpayers interests at heart, and not just a private interest that is only going to serve the private interests. Since there are winners/losers in terms of favorable public policy, the goal should be to create public policy that rewards serving the interest of American citizens. Not an easy task to implement, but the underlying philosophy not to reward companies that take advantage of loopholes that give them big bonuses and then move jobs overseas and treat their workers poorly (not just compensation but bad working conditions that OSHA may not address, and pay so low that the employees end up so poor they're a drain on social services), at least having the ability to effectively address these problems is a sound principle.

3. If Trump, a more traditional Republican, a traditional Liberal, a moderate, an apolitical person, a Whig or whoever else can come up with and implement a successful idea on any of this, I applaud them. As mentioned before, my concern is a non partisan one. I'm not sure if you read my post because it almost looks like an automatic reply that picks up on some key word and then spits out "liberal". That itself is part of the problem.
Bernie knows all about the cost of his program, his friend and political ally Shumlin (D) when Governor, promised universal healthcare for all residents of Vermont. Four years later, he said it couldn't be done, would require raising taxes on individuals by 9% and raising taxes on businesses 11%. Would be an economic disaster for the state.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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