Home › Forums › Political Corner › Bernie Sanders shows brilliance with tax idea. Tax stocks, bonds, derivatives.
This topic contains 50 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by 
Beer 8 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
Right now the economy at the market level is running on happy thoughts, in that the expectations of good things happening are on the rise, but much of that expectation has yet to materialize.
But when is that not the case? What’s different this time?
Faust writes: For example, companies exempt from Obamacare under the Obama Administration, a lot of democrat funding domestic companies on the list, but a number of foreign companies as well: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2900475/posts
No, they are not ‘exempt from Obummercare’.
I think you’re referring to the 1,231 companies that were given a one year waiver on the benefit caps SEVEN years ago? https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/202791-hhs-finalizes-more-than-1200-healthcare-waivers
That was a small provision of ACA, and the waivers were of a limited duration. If you favor small government, it is critical to get the FACTS straight.
It is funny, though, how Republicans hate Obamacare, and want to repeal it. But they love the Medicare drug benefit, Medicare, and Medicaid.
I am against Obummercare/ACA, but I’m also against all the other federal programs that have increased costs for health care, college, and food (agricultural subsidies, anyone?).
If you noticed that politicians that have stopped from doing this have foreign ties and investments that would be hurt by lower U.S. taxation and getting rid of regulations on U.S. citizens and businesses.
To cut taxes beyond a certain point necessitates cutting SPENDING (unless we want even more deficit spending). Since Republicans love Big Government almost as much as Democrats, they failed to cut spending when they controlled the White House AND the Congress for TWO years. They did pass a modest tax cut, but with NO corresponding SPENDING cut.
Their failure to reduce government, has nothing to do with foreign ties and investments. Indeed, even if it WERE true, they could sell their foreign assets, and buy US equities and profit out both ends. Markets are liquid.
As for fewer gasoline blends, I’m all for it — California governance is a basket case.
I also don’t have any sympathy for forgiving college loans; if you want lower college costs, get government loans OUT of that market, FREE it up. Whenever you have few payers — whether it be insurance companies for health care, government for college, etc — it distorts markets. But don’t worry, the youth will elect somebody to forgive all the student loans. And that ‘crisis’ has nothing to do with globalists.
ummm,…no. Anyone can use the system to hide assets and keep taxes at a smaller level.
bulls~~~. not everyone can. the average citizen doesn’t have the same resources, know how, manpower, and pull in Washington as the elite and corporations. yeah, let’s tell the plumber, the cook, the taxi driver, the college professor, the doctor, lawyer, dentist, etc etc to start learning how to take advantage of the bulls~~~ complete cluster f~~~ of the tax code. how about fixing the tax code so that it’s not such a mess and unfair. How, about making the system fair so that it’s not so skewed towards the very rich.
After 20 plus years buying and selling stocks. Making every possible mistake along the way, I have a general feel about the economy. Short term dips and spikes over news is a waste of time to chase unless you have all kinds of money in day trading. If I am to take your pov then everything Trump is doing is a mistake, which is wrong. Not only is is building in short term gains it in reality if the next president dose not change it builds in massive gains in the long run.
and how about everybody else? some of us here are not doing too bad financially. That has nothing to do with the argument at hand because regardless of where you sit on the economic scale, how corporations manipulate the system is unfair. I could never compete with the resources of the top earners and corporations to learn the ins and outs of the system and I don’t even have the time. Why should it be that way? Who said that it’s okay to have the type of tax code that you need to be well learned in order to utilize the loopholes.
As you guessed all hate Trump.
The media is going to push the panic and hate as much as possible, all of them hate the fact Trump won.
It’s not about trump. As soon as Trump gets close to being criticized, you have a knee jerk reaction.
Trump is not a god. He was the better choice against Hillary and Bernie Sanders. What Faust is proposing is not Socialism. It’s to capture back American sovereignty that has been sold out to major corporations and foreign influences. I’m mostly a conservative and am against social welfare programs. But, the fact of the matter is, that regardless of whether you are in the low economic scale or mid to high, the tax code is an unfair, ridiculously complex and geared towards the rich. that fact cannot be disputed. If you dispute that, then, I don’t know what else to say, and frankly, I got better things to do with my time then argue about this.
Trump will likely get re elected. And, all this won’t mean s~~~. So don’t you worry. you can keep your current tax system.
God bless peace and freedom.
After 20 plus years buying and selling stocks. Making every possible mistake along the way, I have a general feel about the economy.
That explains you point of view.
The point of view I take is how loans, bailouts, government subsidies, manipulation of currencies, assets and resources, and a lot of laws and regulations have created massive value bubbles within bubbles.
I can guess that you view “value” as what someone is willing to buy something at a given moment.
I view “value” of a product is inherent value (how usable the item is, the durability of the item, what costs it takes in resources and time to create, etc), not the value that one will pay for an product at the moment.
This point of view allows me to see the inherent wealth that is being shifted from the U.S. population and into foreign hands. Not just physical wealth, but potential wealth being taken through loans whose interest that will not be able to be paid and will left to slave through indentured servitude, or war.
I hope this helps you see my point of view.
Trump is not a god. He was the better choice against Hillary and Bernie Sanders. What Faust is proposing is not Socialism. It’s to capture back American sovereignty that has been sold out to major corporations and foreign influences. I’m mostly a conservative and am against social welfare programs. But, the fact of the matter is, that regardless of whether you are in the low economic scale or mid to high, the tax code is an unfair, ridiculously complex and geared towards the rich. that fact cannot be disputed. If you dispute that, then, I don’t know what else to say, and frankly, I got better things to do with my time then argue about this.
Good post, Tic.
I respect President Trump, but he is not a conservative. He is a economic nationalist whom is moderate on socialist issues. The MAGA movement is not conservative. Conservatism died with the Tea Party movement, what has come from the ashes of the Tea Party is very close to the type of Marxist Workers Revolution that Karl Marxist wrote about. MAGA is a collectivist movement whose only difference from the democrat socialists is that MAGA is pro-nationalists, pro-gun ownership, and pro-life.
The MAGA movement wants to tax democrats and globalists to fund the projects the MAGA movement supports the same way democrats and globalists have been taking the money from MAGA supporters for decades.
In addition, President Trump has been support tariffs and he wants to use a trillions in tax money for infrastructure spending in the U.S. that the U.S. desperately needs and would employ millions of U.S. citizens for years.
This tax on stocks, derivatives, and bonds, that Sanders suggests, is not that far from what President Trump is already proposing.
FrankOne, I believe I am unable to get through to you to where you can understand what I am pointing out.
You are so focuses on the trees, you miss seeing the forest.
I hope you have a good day.
Faust: I agree with you on many points. The tax code, for instance, is distorted to favor many special interests. We disagree on the reasons. Interestingly, it is NOT just the entities receiving special treatment that benefit from a complex tax code. I paid an accountant almost $1,000 last year to prepare my taxes. So tax preparers benefit from it. As do software companies like Intuit that produce TurboTax and other tax software. Indeed, they lobbied AGAINST federal and State governments setting up simple web sites where individuals with simple tax filings could file, using information automatically provided by employers and government agencies, since such a system would cut into their profits.
But I do recommend researching regulatory exemptions. In manufacturing, the only major exemptions are with number of employees—the more employees, the more regulations you must comply with.
The forest is far more important than the trees, but it is crucial to precisely identify the trees that make up the forest. If you want to make a case for limited government you must get the facts right.
I also commend you for recognizing Republicans are collectivists, just like Democrats. I characterize both as Statists but I agree to the extent they have adopted a collectivist mentality, even though they do not wish to nationalize the means of production, they want government to control a sizable fraction of economic output.
I also agree asset bubbles have been created, or at minimum enhanced greatly, by government policy. Government backing of mortgages certainly contributed to the magnitude of the ‘housing crisis’. Following the money shows why both parties supported it: Republicans liked their banker supporters making bank off mortgages insured by the gov’t, and Democrats wanted to give their voters what they wanted, ‘affordable’ housing, I.e. mortgages their broke a$d voters with bad credit, would not qualify for in a true free market.
To me, the only way to measure value is price—what the market is willing to pay.
As for borrowing, Americans have little financial discipline. The majority do not SAVE and invest. I do not blame that on globalism. Individuals do not adjust consumption to their incomes. The breakup of families has also diluted wealth of course.
Similarly, the sheeple do not care about deficits or debt. There is a general lack of knowledge about basic economics.
I will agree that, when you have large, sustained trade deficits, foreign entities will gradually own more dollar denominated assets. That is because when we purchase foreign goods using dollars, the seller of the goods must either buy US goods and services with these dollars (in which case there would be no trade deficit), OR invest them in stocks, land, US treasury bonds, etc. They engage in the latter, rather than the former.
We disagree on the reasons.
So, we do not disagree with effect, only the cause?
But I do recommend researching regulatory exemptions. In manufacturing, the only major exemptions are with number of employees—the more employees, the more regulations you must comply with.
If we focused on exemptions, we would be at this for more days. But, an interest not on exemptions. Due to worker unions exemptions on some laws and regulations, how hard workers were worked in such unions, with questionably on how people are promoted in these unions, and the amount companies pay for the services in these unions, these worker’s unions are in some ways more “corporate” than “corporations”.
I know people in such unions. They have been brainwashed into thinking they are getting a good deal by working 60 to 80 hours a week that in twenty years they will have something meaningful from the unions. But, the work load they are taking on makes it clear for most of them that their bodies will give out before that 20 years are up.
The forest is far more important than the trees, but it is crucial to precisely identify the trees that make up the forest. If you want to make a case for limited government you must get the facts right.
That is an interesting response. I am not sure how to reply.
Though, I will state I am not making the case for “limited government”. That idea no longer matters. Most people no longer support “limited government”. The situation has a reached a point that what matters is who will use government to take from whom.
I also commend you for recognizing Republicans are collectivists, just like Democrats. I characterize both as Statists but I agree to the extent they have adopted a collectivist mentality, even though they do not wish to nationalize the means of production, they want government to control a sizable fraction of economic output.
I am glad you agree in this.
I also agree asset bubbles have been created, or at minimum enhanced greatly, by government policy. Government backing of mortgages certainly contributed to the magnitude of the ‘housing crisis’. Following the money shows why both parties supported it: Republicans liked their banker supporters making bank off mortgages insured by the gov’t, and Democrats wanted to give their voters what they wanted, ‘affordable’ housing, I.e. mortgages their broke a$d voters with bad credit, would not qualify for in a true free market.
The loan industries are so mess up that they are a gordian knot of corruption. And the only way to untangle the knot is to cut the knot in half by abolishing all debts.
To me, the only way to measure value is price—what the market is willing to pay.
But, if you follow the money, those paying are not those benefiting, with those paying usually not having a choice in paying.
As for borrowing, Americans have little financial discipline.
It depends on how you look at it. Before President Trump’s election win, jobs and salaries had been decreasing, while prices on goods and taxes rose. In some cases, people have gone into debt just to have a home and food on the table.
We have whole generations that were brainwashed to believe that debt is an asset, while making it next to impossible to stay out of debt.
The majority do not SAVE and invest. I do not blame that on globalism. Individuals do not adjust consumption to their incomes. The breakup of families has also diluted wealth of course.
It was the globalists behind the welfare state and feminists to break up families. And the globalists have done everything to destroy savings. And 410Ks are not savings. They are government telling the people the only way they will be able to make money from their saves is to put it into the crooked casino called wall street for decades and hope the money is there went they are allowed to pull out their money.
I will agree that, when you have large, sustained trade deficits, foreign entities will gradually own more dollar denominated assets. That is because when we purchase foreign goods using dollars, the seller of the goods must either buy US goods and services with these dollars (in which case there would be no trade deficit), OR invest them in stocks, land, US treasury bonds, etc. They engage in the latter, rather than the former.
But, you are having issues with acknowledging why this is happening.
I guess we are making progress.
Faust: foreigners owning stock in US firms actually encourages such individuals and corporations to lobby on BEHALF of American companies, since it is in their interest to do so to increase their stock value. I remember growing up in the 1980’s. Japan was the bogeyman then. They (Newspeak media) said Japan would own Manhattan and was buying up real estate right and left. Of course that never came to pass and Japan experienced economic setbacks of its own.
The ‘welfare state’ has existed since colonial times in that we had British poor laws. But modern welfare started with FDR and the social security act of 1939, which, among other things, created AFDC which should have been called Aid to Fat Single Mothers Who Won’t Work with Multiple Bastard Children ( AFSMWWWWMBC ). Then we have WIC, aid to fat baby mommas who are so fat all that would be needed to light them is a WICK.
401K’s, IRA’s, and real estate are all savings. All investment carries risk. I do not like the limited vehicles available for reducing taxation on retirement investment, but it is better than being forced to put all of it in the ‘social security’ pot where about 14% of my income goes.
‘Crooked Casino’? My net worth was $1 MM at 30 years of age, due to investing in stocks. I decided to save and invest over half my income in my 20’s. Stocks are certainly riskier than treasury bonds or funds, but just investing in the Dow index, it is worth multiples of what it was decades ago. My chances of becoming a millionaire by going to casinos, I would argue, were much lower. If you don’t like risk go the slow and steady. Live in a shack in your 20’s while buying better property to rent, than what you live in yourself. Or buy bonds or low risk stocks that issue dividends, like utilities.
To stay out of debt simply requires hard work and DISCIPLINE. Sure, there are medical reasons some cannot stay out of debt. But these are the exception.
There are two classes the way I see it, the wage class and the wealth class. A minority of the union members and tradesmen I know are in the wealth class. That is due to their saving and investing money instead of p~~~ing it away spending it like their colleagues. In contrast, the wage class, lives paycheck to paycheck. Always wanting bigger, better, more, now. And blaming all their problems on others — boss won’t give you a raise? Go work elsewhere or build SKILLS to command higher income. The wealth class invests and sees large returns over time. Eventually, they have significant income from these investments — dividends, rent, etc. The bogeyman ‘globalists’ are not preventing individuals from entering the wealth class — their choices and short term thinking, lack of self control, understanding of the time value of money and basic finance, etc, is holding them back.
‘Funding college’
The solution is simple.
There are already taxes for specific things in the United States.
The two largest taxes are for:
Social Security and
Medicare
And it is relatively easy to track who has children (age 01 to 18 years old) via filing of income tax returns since children are listed as dependants.
It is time for a ‘CFT’ College Funding Tax
Collected the exact same way that Social Security and Medicare taxes are collected. But: based exclusively on the number of dependants that someone has. Which are children that will be going to college.
And leave people (tax payers) that do not have children, out of the equation.
Problem solved.
If you want to have kids then pay for them.
Now. One of the reasons the above plan I outlined would never be implemented is because it would cause riots in the streets.
Despite the fact that parents have EIGHTEEN F-CKING YEARS to save for their kids to go to college: Most would never admit that they do not want to do it. And that is a fact.
In closing. If public school from 1st grade to 12th grade was not free: The average American wouldn’t want their kid in school past about the 4th or 5th grade.
And leave people (tax payers) that do not have children, out of the equation.
What about the people that just already paid for theirs? Or people that opted not to go to college. I know plenty of people that served in the military to get their school paid for, or that just said f~~~ it college is a waste of time and got a CDL or into a trade. I just don’t understand why people who say “Path x is stupid, I’m going to choose path Y” have any obligation to pay for people that chose path x. Maybe more people need to stop walking path x.
Despite the fact that parents have EIGHTEEN F-CKING YEARS to save for their kids to go to college: Most would never admit that they do not want to do it.
Why do parents need to pay for their “kids” to go to college? I’m a millennial. I have 2 college degrees. My parents didn’t pay for them. I never took a student loan. If I had kids I’d tell them work and commute to an already subsidized community college, then transfer to an already subsidized state university after you finish an associates. Two degrees for less than half the cost of someone that wants to live on campus for 4 years, plus you actually had some income during those years rather than just loans and living off credit. Even if you don’t make it through debt free you can be the guy with 10 or 20k in loans rather than the guy with 60k+.
In closing. If public school from 1st grade to 12th grade was not free: The average American wouldn’t want their kid in school past about the 4th or 5th grade.
Maybe not…but there is a difference. Its pretty unreasonable to expect a 10 year old to figure out how to pay for his education when they aren’t even legally old enough to work, where as college students are 18+ and legal adults.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
