Bernie Sanders Tax Code

[Theinquisition]

Are there actually any politicians that run on the grounds of just making the government better and more efficient?

There are, but they are typically on the right and on this website would be discounted on that basis alone.

[Reeve]

I disagree, I think in principle its immoral to demand someone pay over half of what they earn in taxes., secondly, no not nessesarily I don't trust corporations either, im just on the fence on who I distrust more, the gov't or corporations.

I don't understand. How does morality figure into it?

- - - Updated - - -

There are, but they are typically on the right and on this website would be discounted on that basis alone.

Or on the basis that they never have any specifics of a viable plan to increase government efficiency.

[Roostercogburn]

To continue to make over $250,000 year?

You mean 125,000 per year. A little less actually. Cause that is what they would see after taxes. So why even bother to go above 200K?

[Reeve]

You mean 125,000 per year. A little less actually. Cause that is what they would see after taxes. So why even bother to go above 200K?

No, it's not. Learn how marginal tax brackets work.

[Azezeil]

You mean 125,000 per year. A little less actually. Cause that is what they would see after taxes. So why even bother to go above 200K?

Why bother trying to make 60k from 50k? More money is more money.

[Kujako]

You mean 125,000 per year

Another one for the 'doesn't understand how US taxes work' column. I swear this was covered in school...

[Rukh]

You think it's fair to ask someone to pay over 50% of what they earn in taxes? Whats to stop someone from reaching that 250k mark and saying screw this im going on a long vacation?

By all means, please do. I'm sure someone else would be happy "only" taking home 120K.

[jakeic]

I may have to next year if my income growth remains the same, but im also partially self employed so it gets complicated. It's bad enough that I got told I make too much for a earned income tax credit.

So...yeah I made good decisions and didn't have a child until I was in my mid thirties, and get nothing back while Rufus down the street has 3 kids by 20 and gets 6k+ in tax returns while working part time..

Fuckin A

So you want to trade your life with Rufus? Or are you upset that someone you deem as inferior is living on your street? Or do you believe having kids should only be the right of the wealthy? Or are you upset because you did everything right but don't appear to be ahead?

Also to get 6k in tax returns he would have to pay in at least that much in taxes, which since you have a kid you know 6k doesn't go very far in paying for their needs let alone the needs of three kids.

[Ripster42]

While i admire that. It won't happen. I promise you. You can quote me and and post about how I was wrong if you want. That is how sure I am.

The government wants people to invest. They will not do anything to even partially disincentivize that. Which is why the crazy old guy (Bernie) is the only one talking about it. Not even Warren Buffet would touch that.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes. They are subject to another code. Basically handled separately from income in most cases.

So only include the parts of his plan that you can complain about, then say the parts that you agree with him don't exist and the lack of those parts means he's just trying to play you. WB has also said on TV that he doesn't think investment income pays enough in taxes. So you're wrong there. Here's him in print saying the same thing.

[Total Crica]

You mean 125,000 per year. A little less actually. Cause that is what they would see after taxes. So why even bother to go above 200K?

to make more then 125k..?

[Theinquisition]

Oh hey, never realized you changed your avatar. I had this vague suspicion that I would disagree with you more often than not, but couldn't remember why... So, hi Tony.

Yeah, Captain N made a weak attempt to Doxx me by looking up my 4 year old linkedin account.

Anyway, hi there bud!

[GodlyBob]

There are, but they are typically on the right and on this website would be discounted on that basis alone.

Most of the actual plans I've heard for "improving efficiency" can usually be translated as "damage programs I don't agree with." I'm not sure I've ever seen anybody on the federal level argue against their own self interest in maintaining bureaucracy and very few at my local government.

[Deleted]

There are, but they are typically on the right and on this website would be discounted on that basis alone.

Well not by me, which means I am willing to have that conversation. It is the same thing here, our right wing government usually runs on that premise and it does net them victories and they get it done (be it not popular at first, but later on it shows itself), so what is it that deters it from actually happening for you guys (I suspect that it doesn't, since you said you didn't believe in them to much).

[Jotaux]

You mean 125,000 per year. A little less actually. Cause that is what they would see after taxes. So why even bother to go above 200K?

Thats not how tax brackets work.

[GodlyBob]

Yeah, Captain N made a weak attempt to Doxx me by looking up my 4 year old linkedin account.

Anyway, hi there bud!

Isn't the internet a fun place?

[Theinquisition]

So you want to trade your life with Rufus? Or are you upset that someone you deem as inferior is living on your street? Or do you believe having kids should only be the right of the wealthy? Or are you upset because you did everything right but don't appear to be ahead?

Also to get 6k in tax returns he would have to pay in at least that much in taxes, which since you have a kid you know 6k doesn't go very far in paying for their needs let alone the needs of three kids.

Because it incentives people who can't afford to raise kids properly to have kids? Why should they get money back that I don't just because they shat out a few kids?

- - - Updated - - -

Isn't the internet a fun place?

Indeed it is, disagree with someone about politics? Doxx them and attack their family.

[lordsphinx]

Why, specifically, would it cause you to go out of business?

I work in a very competitive, hi technology field (aerospace). My company is currently re-investing about 110% of our net earnings in new advancements in technology, with the difference mostly funded out of pocket from the owner’s (and family’s) investments. The money the owner invests annually in the company is not a gift, it’s an investment. The increase in capital gains tax on that investment would make the entire system a net loss.

From there, we can choose to not innovate (and thus lose business to China, Turkey, and India), or reduce wages. As I stated, the aerospace industry is incredibly competitive. If my wages were to decrease, I would be able to find work in a non-aerospace field within a day. I wouldn’t stick around for less pay.

So like I said, 100% guarantee we would be out of business.

Btw, this business structure is not unique to the business I personally work for; it’s unique to the industry. We have to fight tooth and nail every day to try to compete with foreign companies, and this would send it over the edge.

[jakeic]

Your kind of missing the point, not many people are going to be willing to work while receiving less than half of what they should be earning.

First, we know this isn't true as tax rates exist at this rate other places, as well as in the us, and people kept working. Also, we have the evidence of minimum wage workers who also continue to work for less than half of what they should.

Second, so what? If the work needs to be done they will hire another worker or offer more money.

[Theinquisition]

How many time do you have to be told you are wrong on this, before you actually realise your wrong?

Looking at the chart, doesn't show that I am wrong

[zenkai]

This would never make it pass congress