Crazy old bernie sanders wants to RAISE payroll tax on EVERYONE in USA

[NYPat]

You didn't answer the original question, let's say she works 40 hours a week. Who covers those hours now? And a whole year is a long time guy, you're running a business here, and that empty slot is going to cost you money.

Because I don't have to answer the question? Guy.

But the reality is that professional companies value their employees and most will do what it takes to keep them and avoid the costs of turnover for that position.

[sawoobley]

Yes the greatest and most moral nations on earth have a social safety net.

Perhaps they do but that does not contribute to their morality and our current system is not justified in our constitution. Our elected officials derive their power from the people. Since people do not have the right to take their neighbors property and give it to another because they think they need it and they think it is compassionate then neither do our politicians. Of course, they do it anyways but they shouldn't. If people are taxed they should be taxed equally and if people are evading our tax laws then we should come down on them hard. Either way there is nothing moral about voting money out of the pockets of your fellow citizens, especially on a federal level, and forcing them to give up their money (which is really their labor and their life) to other people out of so called compassion. If you want to give money to someone then organize a group and convince people to donate.

The Utopian schemes of leveling [re-distribution of the wealth and a community of goods [central ownership of the means of production and distribution], are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.

William V. Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, 3 volumes, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1865, 1:154.

If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.

Bergh, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 10:342.

���"That all men are born to equal rights is true. Every being has a right to his own, as clear, as moral, as sacred, as any other being has.... But to teach that all men are born with equal powers and faculties, to equal influence in society, to equal property and advantages through life, is as gross a fraud, as glaring an imposition on the credulity of the people, as ever was practiced by monks, by Druids, by Brahmins, by priests of the immortal Lama, or by the self-styled philosophers of the French Revolution."

Quoted in Koch, The American Enlightenment, p. 222.

���"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people. ���

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

"Why the President Said No," in Essays on Liberty, 12 vols., The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1952-65, 3:255; emphasis added.

���"Property is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable, is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence.... I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good."

Quoted in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, May 1955, p. 7.

It is not the right of property which is protected, but the right to property. Property, per se, has no rights; but the individual -- the man -- has three great rights, equally sacred from arbitrary interference: the right to his life, the right to his liberty, the right to his property.... The three rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave.

George Sutherland, "Principle or Expedient?", Annual Address to the New York State Bar Association, 21 January 1921, p. 18.

���"The supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent. For the preservation of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that [property] by entering into society, which was the end for which they entered into it."

John Locke, Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, p. 57, par. 138.

���"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist."

Charles Francis Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams, 10 vols., Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1850-1856, 6:9, 280; emphasis added.

���"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort.... This being the end of government, that alone is not a just government, ... nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest."

Saul K. Padover, ed., The Complete Madison, Harper & Bros., New York, 1953, p. 267.

���"No man would become a member of a community in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor and industry. The preservation of property, then, is a primary object of the social compact.... The legislature, therefore, had no authority to make an act divesting one citizen of his freehold, and vesting it in another, without a just compensation. It is inconsistent with the principles of reason, justice and moral rectitude; it is incompatible with the comfort, peace and happiness of mankind; it is contrary to the principles of social alliance in every free government; and lastly, it is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution."

2 Dall 304, 310 [Pa. 1795]; emphasis added.

It is some strange thinking where men think they have the right to other men's property or that their property is any less valuable because they have more of it and thus the rest of society can take it from them.

[moksha16]

to pay for his socialist programs. the crazy old cuck will ruin the USA if elected. no one will want to work if you have to pay for the lazy leeches that refuse to work and are able.

[R0ck_S0lid]

If you can't afford to have a child then it's because you simply don't deserve it and no one else should pay for it. The only thing the government owes you is a job, so take it, bust your ass and make it work or die in poverty because we don't need failures like you polluting the gene pool in society. End all social programs, cut all benefits to these leeches, and restore free market principals that made this country great.

[moksha16]

If you can't afford to have a child then it's because you simply don't deserve it and no one else should pay for it. The only thing the government owes you is a job, so take it, bust your ass and make it work or die in poverty because we don't need failures like you polluting the gene pool in society. End all social programs, cut all benefits to these leeches, and restore free market principals that made this country great.

What years was america great?

[mustermuscle]

If you can't afford to have a child then it's because you simply don't deserve it and no one else should pay for it. The only thing the government owes you is a job, so take it, bust your ass and make it work or die in poverty because we don't need failures like you polluting the gene pool in society. End all social programs, cut all benefits to these leeches, and restore free market principals that made this country great.

Oh cool the government owes us all jobs?
Let's go tell that to everyone who is unemployed right now. They should be able to just march into any government office and get a job.

What years was america great?

Every year.

[Dave22reborn]

Because I don't have to answer the question? Guy.

But the reality is that professional companies value their employees and most will do what it takes to keep them and avoid the costs of turnover for that position.

Depends how valuable she was as an employee. And you just pointed out that the cost of a turnover is high, just like paying someone to sit at home and raise a child she chose to have.

[Stizzel]

If you can't afford to have a child then it's because you simply don't deserve it and no one else should pay for it. The only thing the government owes you is a job, so take it, bust your ass and make it work or die in poverty because we don't need failures like you polluting the gene pool in society. End all social programs, cut all benefits to these leeches, and restore free market principals that made this country great.

Just because the government stops forcing you to pay people to have children doesn't mean you have to stop doing it voluntarily.

[forcexdistance]

There's nothing moral about using guns to threaten people into giving you their money.

Sure there is.

[otisthebat]

Sure there is.

100% troll

[Stizzel]

Sure there is.

Any plans to pick up a gun and do something moral?

[forcexdistance]

Sure there is.

“morality consists in the set of rules governing behavior, that rational people would accept, on the condition that others accept them as well.”


Those living under a government are parties to a social contract. Each person agrees to follow the laws of the state on the condition that everyone else does the same. That way, we are all relatively safe from each other and we all benefit from the other social goods that will result.

According to SCT, “the state exists to enforce the rules necessary for social living, while morality consists in the whole set of rules that facilitate social living”. (Rachels, p. 144) Thus, government is needed to enforce the basic rules of social living (e.g. don’t rob people, don’t break agreements), while morality may encompass some rules that are important for social living but are outside the scope of the state (this might include, for example, “Don’t insult people for no reason”.)

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/sct.htm

[R0ck_S0lid]

What years was america great?

The mid seventies marked the beginning of the decline, IMO.

Oh cool the government owes us all jobs?
Let's go tell that to everyone who is unemployed right now. They should be able to just march into any government office and get a job.

What I meant is implementing fiscal policies that would allow businesses to create more jobs instead of just bringing the top down or raising taxes on everyone like cuck Sanders wants to do. When was the last time a poor man gave you a job?

The lazies and leeches should be left to die out, maybe legalizing some illicit drugs will make the process faster.

[R0ck_S0lid]

Just because the government stops forcing you to pay people to have children doesn't mean you have to stop doing it voluntarily.

I concur, I just want Bernie to keep his hand outtta my pocket.

[Jasonw1178]

So paid maternity leave is a bad thing that we cannot afford? It sucked when my wife had to go to work and we had to pay someone to watch our baby. A mom should be able to spend that time with her newborn. Of course on a board like this I don't expect many can relate and will call being human "***goty". What about reducing the military spending by 0.5% and pay for it that way?

Oh so other people can pay so you can be greedy and spend your money on things you want. A mom can spend that time with her baby, but she won't be paid for it. Greedy woman wanting other's money so she can do as she pleases.

[Jderavian]

I suggest that most of you should watch the movie "Sicko".

If you are too impatient to watch that, then watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMqcLUqYqrs

[BioDiver]

Friendly reminder that he wants to pay for this by pushing HR 676 again.

Friendly reminder that HR 676 was laughed out of the House and had almost no support from the Dem-controlled Senate when it was first introduced.

Friendly reminder that we literally have no candidates that instill confidence in our next 4-8 years.

[Jderavian]

Friendly reminder that we literally have no candidates that instill confidence in our next 4-8 years.

this is true

[moksha16]

The mid seventies marked the beginning of the decline, IMO.



What I meant is implementing fiscal policies that would allow businesses to create more jobs instead of just bringing the top down or raising taxes on everyone like cuck Sanders wants to do. When was the last time a poor man gave you a job?

The lazies and leeches should be left to die out, maybe legalizing some illicit drugs will make the process faster.

What were the tax rates like before the mid 70's?

and what were the social programs like?.. i seem to recall some pretty big government programs and some pretty high tax rates.

[trailwarrior]

When was the last time a poor man gave you a job?

Just before the CEO stole his wages!

[dimitriy]

What were the tax rates like before the mid 70's?

and what were the social programs like?.. i seem to recall some pretty big government programs and some pretty high tax rates.

The effective tax rates have always been the same...

Back in the 50s, the top 3% of americans paid approximately the same share of taxes as they do today. This was largely because of how easy it was to shelter taxes back then - even though the official tax rate on the super rich was upwards of 90%

No matter what period in time you look at after WWII, US tax revenues have ALWAYS been between 15-20%... in fact, the middle and lower class just pay less taxes today than they did back then

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law

[CalmWind]

the democratic party is a mess. bigger and bigger federal govt

[swoleyo]

So paid maternity leave is a bad thing that we cannot afford? It sucked when my wife had to go to work and we had to pay someone to watch our baby. A mom should be able to spend that time with her newborn. Of course on a board like this I don't expect many can relate and will call being human "***goty". What about reducing the military spending by 0.5% and pay for it that way?

Why should I have to pay for your fetus? phuck you, pay for your own kid *******.

[NYPat]

Depends how valuable she was as an employee. And you just pointed out that the cost of a turnover is high, just like paying someone to sit at home and raise a child she chose to have.

Re-read my post. I said a minimum of a year with unpaid leave.

[Bushmaster]

Why should I have to pay for your fetus? phuck you, pay for your own kid *******.

Good damn luck getting anything resembling an answer out of him. See below....

maybe you should have been better financially before having a kid you couldn't afford

it's not OTHER people's responsibility to pay for your kid

"We" cannot afford? Sounds like you and your wife were the ones who couldn't afford it bro.

[Bushmaster]

the democratic party is a mess. bigger and bigger federal govt

IIRC that was one of the reasons why they hated the Bush administration so bad.. "Too much gummint make Mongo angry! Raage!"

[coppb]

Socialism at its best ! Why should the population have to pay for your kid ? Would it not be more responsible if you and your wife manage your own finances better or at least secure a higher income job ? Having a baby is a huge responsibility and no one should be responsible except you and her,not the tax payers.

Because the govt wants to give more incentive to people to have children = more future tax revenue base. Rinse and repeat.

More citizen growth in population = less immigration, not always a bad thing if you were to consider all the costs involved with that side of things.

[forcexdistance]

Good damn luck getting anything resembling an answer out of him. See below....

But yet we pay your unemployment insurance and child tax credit and a myriad of other things that benefits the individual and society as a whole.

Safety net programs: About 11 percent of the federal budget in 2014, or $370 billion, supported programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship. Spending on safety net programs declined in both nominal and real terms between 2013 and 2014 as the economy continued to improve.
policybasics-wheretaxdollarsgo-f1.pngThese programs include: the refundable portions of the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, which assist low- and moderate-income working families through the tax code; programs that provide cash payments to eligible individuals or households, including Supplemental Security Income for the elderly or disabled poor and unemployment insurance; various forms of in-kind assistance for low-income families and individuals, including SNAP (food stamps), school meals, low-income housing assistance, child care assistance, and assistance in meeting home energy bills; and various other programs such as those that aid abused and neglected children.

[Dave22reborn]

Re-read my post. I said a minimum of a year with unpaid leave.

I one time worked at a store with five employees, one of them was the manager. One of those employees gets knocked up, who will pick up the slack?

[forcexdistance]

I one time worked at a store with five employees, one of them was the manager. One of those employees gets knocked up, who will pick up the slack?

What does every other country in the world do?