Bernie Sanders drops out of Presidential Race

[Xzi]

Literally does not change your propaganda spreading.

Yet another word that you clearly don't understand the meaning of.

And no, your hostile and toxic posting style while reframing the work of other candidates like Warren, while pushing a realistically terrible candidate make you an extremist.

Right, I get it now. Everybody who likes a candidate that you don't is an extremist. Everybody who dislikes a candidate that you do like is also an extremist.

@Waygeek @Xzi Okay boys, that's enough. You've had your time to get personal, but enough is enough. If you want to prod at each other some more, take it to PM's, or preferably knock it off. You both think you're toxic, we get it.

No worries, preaching enlightened centrism is always the fastest way to be put on my ignore list.

 

[Foxi4]

No worries, preaching enlightened centrism is always the fastest way to be put on my ignore list.

Don't knock it until you try it, I'll have you know that radical centrism is great!

 

[Xzi]

Don't knock it until you try it, radical centrism is great!

Meh, I think MLK had it right when he called moderates a bigger impediment to progress than his political enemies.

 

[Foxi4]

Meh, I think MLK had it right when he called moderates a bigger impediment to progress than his political enemies.

MLK said a bunch of things that the political left doesn't adhere to today, so you're cherry picking a little bit. That's neither here nor there - the important part is that you can't simultaneously believe "moderates are an impediment to progress" and reject the claim that you're extreme. @Waygeek has a valid point in this regard, and one that you should consider.

 

[Xzi]

MLK said a bunch of things that the political left doesn't adhere to today, so you're cherry picking a little bit. That's neither here nor there - the important part is that you can't simultaneously believe "moderates are an impediment to progress" and reject the claim that you're extreme. @Waygeek has a valid point in this regard, and one that you should consider.

There is a whole lot of space between moderate and extremist that's easy enough for me to occupy. From the point of view of tankies and anarkitties, Bernie was the compromise candidate. Matter of fact, pretty much any candidate would've been the compromise candidate for them since they don't see electoralism as a viable path to progress. Considering we're now stuck with the choice between Joe "nothing would fundamentally change" Biden and Donald "faster descent into a police state" Trump, I'm starting to see the merits in that argument. I am neither a communist nor an anarchist, however, and despite my criticisms of her, I would've greatly preferred Warren to Biden as the Democratic candidate.

It's worth noting that you also qualify as an extremist by Waygeek's definition, being a Libertarian Trump supporter and all.

 

[Seliph]

It's an analysis of the official IRS report for 2016, if you want to slog through a wall of text, you can just click the source link - it's right there, in the very first paragraph.

https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-income-tax-rates-and-tax-shares

"I don't like your source" is a losing argument, a number isn't biased, it either supports or debunks your theory. The wealthy cover the *overwhelming* majority of the income tax revenue because in order for your income tax contribution to be meaningful you need to first have meaningful income. This isn't a big mystery that we've uncovered here.

The ways numbers are used can be very biased. Climate change deniers manipulate numbers all the time to make it seem like global temperatures aren't rising.

Now clearly you have more knowledge about economics than I do, and clearly we're approaching (relatively) similar problems from different frameworks. I do still believe my points have a lot of merit, but I don't really know enough about economics to engage in any meaningful debate in that field.

While I still disagree with several of your points, I understand where you're coming from, and it's enlightening to hear from alternate perspectives.

That being said, I concede because it's clear that I don't have the same level of understanding of economics as you do. Thanks for your time.

 

[Foxi4]

There is a whole lot of space between moderate and extremist that's easy enough for me to occupy. From the point of view of tankies and anarkitties, Bernie was the compromise candidate. Matter of fact, pretty much any candidate would've been the compromise candidate for them since they don't see electoralism as a viable path to progress. Considering we're now stuck with the choice between Joe "nothing would fundamentally change" Biden and Donald "faster descent into a police state" Trump, I'm starting to see the merits in that argument. I am neither a communist nor an anarchist, however, and despite my criticisms of her, I would've greatly preferred Warren to Biden as the Democratic candidate.

It's worth noting that you also qualify as an extremist by Waygeek's definition, being a Libertarian Trump supporter and all.

@Xzi, say my name. It's "Trumpkin", get it right. All jokes aside, I support whoever and whatever takes me closer to my goals. Right now that's Trump, tomorrow it might be somebody else. That said, it's been a thrill ride so far, I hope it continues for a while longer.

The ways numbers are used can be very biased. Climate change deniers manipulate numbers all the time to make it seem like global temperatures aren't rising.

Now clearly you have more knowledge about economics than I do, and clearly we're approaching (relatively) similar problems from different frameworks. I do still believe my points have a lot of merit, but I don't really know enough about economics to engage in any meaningful debate in that field.

While I still disagree with several of your points, I understand where you're coming from, and it's enlightening to hear from alternate perspectives.

That being said, I concede because it's clear that I don't have the same level of understanding of economics as you do. Thanks for your time.

Pleasure is all mine, and I apologise if I sounded too harsh at any point - it's just the way I argue. I can see some of the merits of your side as well, however in order to achieve your stated goals I really think your side needs to focus on how to effectively fund them first. "Eat the rich" is not a good way to do it - we're already eating the rich.

One of the reasons why many European countries can afford to have "free" universal healthcare is because a lot of the tax burden is relieved by a value added tax, that's not a thing in the United States. All goods are taxed at 4-20%, which is similar to your state sales tax if it operated on a federal level and was much higher than it is. Food is of course exempt from VAT altogether, as are many other essentials. This is also one of the reasons why Americans are, comparatively speaking, much wealthier than their European counterparts - you're not taxed twice on the same dollar, at least not to the same extent.

If you wanted my prescription on how to propel the US towards prosperity, step one would be to eradicate the income tax altogether, either to the lower 50% of the population who are just not making a meaningful contribution anyway and could use the extra cash, or completely, and replace it with a value added tax on all domestic transactions. That way your taxes scale with your consumption - the rich still pay a lot, the poor pay less since they consume less. Makes for a better society in my opinion, one where productivity isn't penalised and people are taxed per government service rendered, as in order to purchase something, one must use legal tender as provided by the government. I hope that makes sense. Step two would be to scale back the cost of government, but neither the red nor the blue side want to do that, so we'll put that one on the wishlist for now.

 

[Waygeek]

Genuinely incredible @Xzi wasn't able to heed moderator request and stfu like I did, goes to show what an extremist he is. Cannot help himself. @Foxi4 he's really looking for a thread ban. Probably a 'us politics' thread ban.

One of the reasons why many European countries can afford to have "free" universal healthcare is because a lot of the tax burden is relieved by a value added tax, that's not a thing in the United States. All goods are taxed at 4-20%, which is similar to your state sales tax if it operated on a federal level and was much higher than it is. Food is of course exempt from VAT altogether, as are many other essentials. This is also one of the reasons why Americans are, comparatively speaking, much wealthier than their European counterparts - you're not taxed twice on the same dollar, at least not to the same extent.

Or it's because we don't have almost twenty aircraft carriers that cost us a million a day to run for some reason.

The reason you don't have healthcare is your preposterous military industrial complex.

 

[Taleweaver]

To get back at the OP: I'm sad Bernie dropped out. Whether the system was stacked against him or not is something I'll leave to others to discuss.

The way I see it, he certainly had a chance. The whole "radical left" is just an opinion...I haven't heard him utter a single idea that isn't talked about in European countries, if not already implemented. And while it certainly has a following in the USA, I do dare to claim that this support wasn't enough to carry him to the white house. His job now is more important than that: make sure that the ideas take root.

I've got to be honest: before Trump's scandal with the guy, I never heard of Biden. It was more like "Oh, so he was vice president, apparently?". Not to diss his work under Obama, but his foreign press was pretty low.


Not sure why people are saying they might as well give 4 more years to Trump. Fucker can barely get a popularity boost in the country's greatest disaster since world war 2 (the average increase in such a situation is 15-20 percent. He hardly gets 3). Actually winning against Trump is easy. The hard thing is maintaining a proper voting process somehow.


...I won't be replying to toxic remarks, so spare me your opinions on my opinion. I've heard it before.

 

[Waygeek]

The way I see it, he certainly had a chance. The whole "radical left" is just an opinion...I haven't heard him utter a single idea that isn't talked about in European countries, if not already implemented.

Breaking up banks.

College is not actually free in a lot of European countries.

Nor is medical care fully free in most European countries.

...I won't be replying to toxic remarks, so spare me your opinions on my opinion. I've heard it before.

Last edited by Taleweaver, Today at 12:17 AM

LOL this is what happens when you say things that have no basis in reality. If there are no further posts to bury the one that proves your statement wrong, you have to do this to stick your fingers in your ears while you walk away humming.

Being a Belgian and fellow European you should really know better.

At least your beer is on point.

 

[notimp]

Foxi4 is lying through his teeth again. Thats just the way I argue, btw.

While VAT is a thing in most european states, sales tax is a thing in most american states.

In Europe its generally higher but its far from non existent in the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe.../2560px-Median_household_income_and_taxes.png

Compare with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage

and this

Through an American lens, Western Europe’s middle classes appear smaller
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...estern-europes-middle-classes-appear-smaller/

Also - whats impacting disposable income in Europe as well is f.e. rent pricing. Most people in europe have to rent, because our cities are older, there is less space, our walls are not built of paper (drywall), ... Also a less favorable energy price (oil).

That factors out to about 8% less wealthy because of "lottery of birth":

Recent research by Charles I. Jones and Peter J. Klenow finds that economic well-being in their sample of Western European countries is similar to that of the U.S. when welfare estimates are broadened to include measures of leisure, mortality and inequality. For example, they estimate that while per capita income in France is only 67% of the level in the U.S., the broader measure of welfare for France is 92% of the level of welfare in the U.S.

edit: Also - income distribution is a thing.
https://www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm
--

 

[Foxi4]

Foxi4 is lying through his teeth again. Thats just the way I argue, btw.

While VAT is a thing in most european states, sales tax is a thing in most american states.

In Europe its generally higher but its far from non existent in the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States



Compare with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage

and this

Through an American lens, Western Europe’s middle classes appear smaller
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...estern-europes-middle-classes-appear-smaller/

Also - whats impacting disposable income in Europe as well is f.e. rent pricing. Most people in europe have to rent, because our cities are older, there is less space, our walls are not built of paper (drywall), ... Also a less favorable energy price (oil).

That factors out to about 8% less wealthy because of "lottery of birth":


edit: Also - income distribution is a thing.
https://www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm

That's literally what I said - VAT is the equivalent of the US state sales tax *if* it operated on a federal level. There's obviously a number of other factors that impact overall wealth, this does include the housing market, particularly in areas where the population is dense. I never said that's not the case, what I said was that higher levels of taxation are one of the causes as well. You haven't pointed out anything I've said that wasn't true.

 

[notimp]

Lets take south carolina figures for example:

(100/(37000+15000))*15000 = 28% tax burden

Compare it with france:

(100/(41300+31100))*31100 = 43% tax burden

(different currencies (and also multiplied by 14 not 12 (additional salaries), so just compare percentage values)

For that you get universal health care, public universities, public museums, a publicly co-financed art scene, public swimming pools, and no bums on the streets. Also less pot holes. And arguably a better living when you get old, without being able to retire to florida.

Thats for 'middle classes' - if you make more money, you usually pay less taxes.

 

[Foxi4]

Lets take south carolina figures for example:

(100/(37000+15000))*15000 = 28% tax burden

Compare it with france:

(100/(41300+31100))*31100 = 43% tax burden

For that you get universal health care, public universities, public museums, a publically co financed art scene, public swimming pools, and no bums on the streets.

>France
>No bums on the street

Okay. I won't even touch that one.

Thank you for illustrating that the tax burden is higher in France than it is in the United States, thus proving my point. I don't know what exactly you're arguing against here. You'll have to clarify for me, I'm genuinely confused.

 

[notimp]

That's literally what I said - VAT is the equivalent of the US state sales tax *if* it operated on a federal level.

As for the if, see graph posted (for lurkers).

You did. I went "what the heck are you selling?!!?" before reading your entire post.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Thank you for illustrating that the tax burden is higher in France than it is in the United States, thus proving my point. I don't know what exactly you're arguing against here. You'll have to clarify for me, I'm genuinely confused.

Your argument that 'this be because of VAT' taxes is wrong. Your argument, that this leads to people in the us being 'wealthier' is wrong.

Ill get the appropriate graphs shortly - give me a sec.

 

[Foxi4]

As for the if, see graph posted (for lurkers).

You did. I went "what the heck are you selling?!!?" before reading your entire post.

Well, I'm glad reading my entire post proved enlightening. States do charge a sales tax on goods, it varies between the states and goes directly to their coffers. My point was that it is not a federal tax akin to VAT, which is a value added tax incurred on, well, added value. The difference is that VAT is based on an increase of value at each stage of production whereas a sales tax is paid at the point of sale.

For lurkers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_tax

EDIT: I find the idea that a tax burden nearly double the size has no impact on overall wealth to be asinine, but I can see where you're coming from even *before* you post a graph or two. Your argument is that the implemented public services provide an overall saving for the population, which is probably true on the macro scale, particularly in terms of healthcare since the American system is grossly overcharging due to the poor implementation of insurance. My answer to that would be "I don't like American healthcare either", and in addition, I woukd also reiterate that "wealth comes from risk, not from stability - some people win, most people lose". Don't worry, I see the merit in what you're about to say, I simply reject the premise of "greater good", which perhaps makes me a scumbag, but I've come to peace with that classification.

How's my guess? Accurate, or not so much?

 

[notimp]

This is your problem:

src: https://www.compareyourincome.org/ (OECD)

The tool is lousy - so I had to click through for 5 minutes.

The issue is no re-distribution, not VAT

 

[Foxi4]

This is your problem:

src: https://www.compareyourincome.org/ (OECD)

The tool is lousy - so I had to click for 5 minutes.

The issue is re-distribution, not VAT.

I don't necessarily have a problem with that distribution model, the larger the wealthy group the better. Shame about the low income side of the scale, but yes, that's the overall result.

 

[notimp]

OK, but then make clear what your position is.

Dont propagate ("THA FEDERAL STATE IS TAKING YOUR MONEYS AWAY!!11!!1! - Otherwise you would have more of it." No, taking moneys away is part of that re-distribution effort. ))

Also look very closely to the size of the middle class bars as well. (Less people in the US in the middle classes as well.)

 

[Foxi4]

OK, but then make clear what your position is.

Dont propagate (THA FEDERAL STATE IS TAKING YOUR MONEYS AWAY!!11!!1! ("Otherwise you would have more of it." No, taking moneys away is part of that re-distribution effort. ))

Oh, but it does - it does take your money away, hand over fist. it's also worth mentioning that in European countries lower segments of society pay almost no tax on their income. In Great Britain the lowest tax bracket is 0% for income up to £12,500. That lower tax burden enables people with low incomes to avoid living in poverty - in the US the lowest tax bracket is 10%. Of course there are also various deductibles, there's SNAP and other programs, but I'm pointing it out because I mentioned that I would like to see the income tax reduced, particularly for low income earners. Y'know, like in the social-democracies of Europe that you guys like so much.

EDIT: In Germany the lowest tax bracket is 0% for incomes up to €9408, in France it's 0% up to €9964. I see a trend.