PDA

View Full Version : Is there an argument against that Bernie Sanders whole platform is class warfare?



benbenben2055
03-13-2019, 03:02 PM
I'm sure he means well, but intentions aren't a virtue. Having billionaires and millionaires doesn't mean that someone is poor because of it because wealth isn't a fixed pie. Would he rather have everyone be equally poor, so that there is no income inequality? Every single socialist country in history has failed. Most importantly, if you were to take the income of every single person in the 1 percent and distribute it, it wouldn't even reach 2,000 per year.

pointguard12
03-13-2019, 05:43 PM
It's really complex, but basically as I understand it, it's not about making all income equal among everybody. That would obviously be a disaster and nobody is trying to do that. But there's data showing that income inequality has grown out of control and needs to be addressed. There's also data showing that as productivity has risen, wages have remained stagnant. So basically the rich are using the power of their money to take too much money that belongs to the productive workers. If we can get wages to match productivity, that will give many people the bootstraps they need in order to continue being productive. And the rich will still be rich.

Tamorlane
03-13-2019, 06:54 PM
I'm sure he means well, but intentions aren't a virtue. Having billionaires and millionaires doesn't mean that someone is poor because of it because wealth isn't a fixed pie. Would he rather have everyone be equally poor, so that there is no income inequality? Every single socialist country in history has failed. Most importantly, if you were to take the income of every single person in the 1 percent and distribute it, it wouldn't even reach 2,000 per year.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e3/8e/7c/e38e7cb02646e9a0335cf885a0b0ce2f.jpg

89FoxBody
03-13-2019, 07:50 PM
Bernie Sanders does not mean well. He is a fraud and a charlatan who has provided nothing of value to the American people in the entirety of his life. He has sponsored no meaningful legislation and nothing he has ever done has ever moved the needle one iota. He is a statist, pure an simple, and desires nothing more than to arrogate power in the hands of the all-powerful state.

wesleysh21
03-13-2019, 07:50 PM
It's really complex, but basically as I understand it, it's not about making all income equal among everybody. That would obviously be a disaster and nobody is trying to do that. But there's data showing that income inequality has grown out of control and needs to be addressed. There's also data showing that as productivity has risen, wages have remained stagnant. So basically the rich are using the power of their money to take too much money that belongs to the productive workers. If we can get wages to match productivity, that will give many people the bootstraps they need in order to continue being productive. And the rich will still be rich.

Wages are based on the ability to attract the level of employee you need for the job and retain them for the requisite amount of time. As companies explore those parameters they dial in where they need to be in terms of pay for the area and job based on the kinds of employees they attract for the positions and how long they can keep them. From that standpoint, wages are what they are. If you want more money...offer more to the company.

That being said, that leads to some of the problems with trying to calculate wages on a macro scale. Let’s look at construction. If my company is growing and values me, I can move up the food chain. I can move from entry level laborer to carpenter to foreman to superintendent to project manager...keeping the levels really simple. The wages for all of those positions are set. You earn more money by advancing to the next level. As you advance to the next level, the people below you advance to the next level. Starting as a laborer and advancing to superintendent is a big deal. But guess what you did to the average wage across the country? Nothing. In construction you earn a salary in line with other superintendents, you have a similar number of foreman under you earning similar wage to other foreman, and they have carpenters and laborers below them earning typical carpenter and laborer wages. The economy expanded and you got a big pay raise...but in the MACRO economy...it doesn’t even register.

Long story short, the only way wages are going to go up in a macro measurement is if there are some major, major market corrections to the wage rates of everyday positions. Like really big. Disrupt the entire economy big.

pointguard12
03-13-2019, 08:36 PM
...

If you want more money...offer more to the company.

...




Good post. I'm pretty damn far from an economist and IDK how to respond to your whole post without a wall of text, but I wanted to address this part. In the past it used to work like this, but now the data shows that people ARE adding more to the company, and not getting more money for it. With all this technology we're more productive than ever, and wages don't reflect it.

benbenben2055
03-13-2019, 09:05 PM
QUOTE=Tamorlane

Please tell me your highest level of Economics education. Please tell me why you think soaking the rich is a good thing. Please tell me why every single socialist country has failed

benbenben2055
03-13-2019, 09:07 PM
It's really complex, but basically as I understand it, it's not about making all income equal among everybody. That would obviously be a disaster and nobody is trying to do that. But there's data showing that income inequality has grown out of control and needs to be addressed. There's also data showing that as productivity has risen, wages have remained stagnant. So basically the rich are using the power of their money to take too much money that belongs to the productive workers. If we can get wages to match productivity, that will give many people the bootstraps they need in order to continue being productive. And the rich will still be rich.

The average American lives 1000 times better than they did in 1950 and better than 99 percent of the world. Tell me how the last 50 years of growing "inequality" has been bad

pointguard12
03-13-2019, 09:17 PM
The average American lives 1000 times better than they did in 1950 and better than 99 percent of the world. Tell me how the last 50 years of growing "inequality" has been bad

Things have gotten better, no doubt. But what I'm saying is we could be doing even better than we currently are. Matching wages to production levels helps us live x amount of times better than we are now, and helps reduce crime, poverty, drug addiction, etc.

YesiEvenLiftBro
03-13-2019, 09:31 PM
I'm sure he means well, but intentions aren't a virtue. Having billionaires and millionaires doesn't mean that someone is poor because of it because wealth isn't a fixed pie. Would he rather have everyone be equally poor, so that there is no income inequality? Every single socialist country in history has failed. Most importantly, if you were to take the income of every single person in the 1 percent and distribute it, it wouldn't even reach 2,000 per year.

First of all I see your point, but you might be a little off there with your 2,000 a year estimate, the top 1% of America pulls in a tiny bit over 10 trillion a year collectively. 10 trillion / 325 million =/= X<2,000 with X being the amount of money per person if redistribution were to occur. That's more around 30,000$ per American, 30,000 is not less than 2,000. And that's just one year's gross that's not seizing wealth, that's hypothetically if you were to just steal 1 year's gross from the collective 1% of earners.

I don't think Bernie has a good platform on economics, he absolutely is the least growth oriented candidate, however he seems more concerned with paying off the debt and offering social programs, albeit it will be at the expense of GDP.

bassline8
03-14-2019, 01:09 AM
The average American lives 1000 times better than they did in 1950 and better than 99 percent of the world. Tell me how the last 50 years of growing "inequality" has been bad

Yeah, who needs to own a house when you can rent and have a cheap iphone and a 60" 4k TV

Dan_S
03-14-2019, 07:08 AM
It's really complex, but basically as I understand it, it's not about making all income equal among everybody. That would obviously be a disaster and nobody is trying to do that. But there's data showing that income inequality has grown out of control and needs to be addressed. There's also data showing that as productivity has risen, wages have remained stagnant. So basically the rich are using the power of their money to take too much money that belongs to the productive workers. If we can get wages to match productivity, that will give many people the bootstraps they need in order to continue being productive. And the rich will still be rich.

Blame everyone who keeps parroting the idea that we need population growth in order to sustain our economy (including Trump).

Yes, our productivity has increased dramatically, but we keep trying to grow our working population (women, immigrants, etc) and so it all gets absorbed by additional people.

If we had maintained a steady population of 150 million people from the 1950's, we'd probably all be working 20 hour weeks by now.

backinbusiness
03-14-2019, 08:12 AM
....Bernie....however he seems more concerned with paying off the debt and offering social programs

Pay off debt
Offer trillion dollar social programs

Pick one

Mark1T
03-14-2019, 08:16 AM
Bernie Sanders does not mean well. He is a fraud and a charlatan who has provided nothing of value to the American people in the entirety of his life. He has sponsored no meaningful legislation and nothing he has ever done has ever moved the needle one iota. He is a statist, pure an simple, and desires nothing more than to arrogate power in the hands of the all-powerful state.

I fully agree. Bernie is a fraud and I do not believe that he believes much of the BS he preaches. The US would become a hell-hole of poverty if he became president.

Tuksonrider
03-14-2019, 08:20 AM
The average American lives 1000 times better than they did in 1950 and better than 99 percent of the world. Tell me how the last 50 years of growing "inequality" has been bad

That's vague. Better how, in what ways?

My father was able to raise a family and buy a house on a single income in the 70's and early 80's.

I was able to afford a 4 years at a state university working for minimum wage without pulling out loans. When the University of Arizona in-state tuition was $900/semester in the early 90's it wasn't that difficult. In what ways is being in $1000's of dollars in debt a couple years out of high school, and living in your mom's basement with low-wage job prospects better?

Jrd86
03-14-2019, 08:51 AM
It's really complex, but basically as I understand it, it's not about making all income equal among everybody. That would obviously be a disaster and nobody is trying to do that. But there's data showing that income inequality has grown out of control and needs to be addressed. There's also data showing that as productivity has risen, wages have remained stagnant. So basically the rich are using the power of their money to take too much money that belongs to the productive workers. If we can get wages to match productivity, that will give many people the bootstraps they need in order to continue being productive. And the rich will still be rich.

LOL at "data." The rich have gotten richer because they've deindustrialized the US by outsourcing jobs and production overseas to places like China, India, ect. That, in part, is why wages havent risen significantly in 20-30 years. Another issue with stagnant wage growth is illegal aliens suppressing wages for American workers. The real issue is America succumbing to becoming a corporatocracy. A nation controlled and influenced by special interests from rich and powerful corporations that reside inside it. This is why big techs censorship campaign is so dangerous. The type of precedent this sets is scary for ALL americans. Today its conservatives, tomorrow its EVERYBODY.

As for why Bernie sanders embraces income class warfare...its what commies do. They divide the population by race, by religion, by sex, by income, ect. In hardcore old communist countries, they do it by job tasks. You are groomed to be a soldier, a welder, a laborer, a nurse, ect. Its done as a means to control the population and make it compliant. To do that in a country like the US, you need to have "wedge issues" to divide people on. So they focus on income, race, religion, sex, sexual preference, gender dysphoria, they erode away the pillars of what made a country like the US a great democracy, a constitutional republic. So they teach women promiscuity is female empowerment, masculinity is bad, human life isnt important, and so you can kill your babies...war on the nuclear family concept, ect. ect. ect.

To build the new system, you first need to tear down the old one. So you go after historical statues, and you rewrite history. You teach the youth that the founders were bad. That they were evil ugly racists who were oppressors of native americans, of blacks, and other indigenous peoples. Then you go after the constiution that they wrote, the Bill of Rights that they signed, and the foundation of the country that they built. You cast them as "historical oppressors." To complete the process, you control the healthcare of the people through socialized medicine. Control the peoples health and well being, and you have them by the nose. Take away their guns and weapons so that they dont represent a threat to you control. This is what Bernie and the far left socialist wing of the democrat party want. Their demands always increase. Give an inch, and theyll take a mile.

TacticalTaco
03-14-2019, 09:05 AM
Yeah, who needs to own a house when you can rent and have a cheap iphone and a 60" 4k TV

Interest rates are far lower than they were 40 years ago, not sure why it's hard to buy a house. Save your money better.

Tuksonrider
03-14-2019, 10:08 AM
Interest rates are far lower than they were 40 years ago, not sure why it's hard to buy a house. Save your money better.

LOL. Please learn some math. Avg interest rate in the 70's was about 12%, reaching a high of 18% for a short period. Median home prices at the time was around $24k.

The amortization of a 30-year loan on $24k @ 12% vs the amortization of $240k @ 4.5% is not even in the same universe.

Mark1T
03-14-2019, 10:13 AM
Socialism is always pitched to the public to start and inflame class warfare, i.e. Bernie, Warren, AOC. "The rich are stealing money from the middle class," "you are not smart enough to make money so we need to take it from the rich and redistribute it," "the rich don't pay their fair share," etc...

Droves of people always fall for it.

OP, Bernie does not mean well. He means harm. He is a dangerous BS artist.

DuracellBunny
03-14-2019, 10:27 AM
The strategy of the left is about victimisation and identity politics. The problem with that is, every time you make somebody a victim, you annoy another group: female victims annoy men, gay victims annoy straight people etc, which only takes you a certain distance.

If you attack the 1%, you make 99% of the country victims who need your help to get ahead. Electoral victim math at it's finest.

ButWhoWasNoodz
03-14-2019, 10:58 AM
Socialism is always pitched to the public to start and inflame class warfare, i.e. Bernie, Warren, AOC. "The rich are stealing money from the middle class," "you are not smart enough to make money so we need to take it from the rich and redistribute it," "the rich don't pay their fair share," etc...

Droves of people always fall for it.

OP, Bernie does not mean well. He means harm. He is a dangerous BS artist.

The Nazi party said the same thing in the 30s--"the rich Jewish bankers took all your money"
Today, Elizabeth Warren and dems say "the rich bankers took all your money"
They just leave out the word "Jewish"
Right out of Nazism and the KKK. See: David Duke aligning with that lunatic from Minnesota. Nothing new for dems.

sandaltan
03-14-2019, 11:09 AM
he just wants to tax them more

calm down

also, youre not rich, so why do you care?

SaltyDog920
03-14-2019, 11:15 AM
he just wants to tax them more

calm down

also, youre not rich, so why do you care?

Because people find it morally repugnant to steal a person's wealth and forcibly transfer it to other people. Goddamn you're the dumbest lawyer I've ever conversed with, and I've conversed with some idiotic lawyers.

sandaltan
03-14-2019, 11:20 AM
Because people find it morally repugnant to steal a person's wealth and forcibly transfer it to other people. Goddamn you're the dumbest lawyer I've ever conversed with, and I've conversed with some idiotic lawyers.

meh, i dont find it morally repugnant and i also dont think its stealing or transferring to other people. its taxes man, theyre not giving it to other people. are you...did you know that? or do you literally think thats what happens. or maybe thats just your really weird way to think about it which justifies your position on it.

its stealing and bad!

derp

NitrogenWidget
03-14-2019, 11:24 AM
Bernie Sanders does not mean well. He is a fraud and a charlatan who has provided nothing of value to the American people in the entirety of his life. He has sponsored no meaningful legislation and nothing he has ever done has ever moved the needle one iota. He is a statist, pure an simple, and desires nothing more than to arrogate power in the hands of the all-powerful state.

Bernie got bent over by his own party last election.
I don't believe they want him running.

SaltyDog920
03-14-2019, 11:44 AM
meh, i dont find it morally repugnant and i also dont think its stealing or transferring to other people. its taxes man, theyre not giving it to other people.

derp

Honestly, I really do think you have a mental deficiency that blocks critical thinking in your brain.

Mark1T
03-14-2019, 11:48 AM
The Nazi party said the same thing in the 30s--"the rich Jewish bankers took all your money"
Today, Elizabeth Warren and dems say "the rich bankers took all your money"
They just leave out the word "Jewish"
Right out of Nazism and the KKK. See: David Duke aligning with that lunatic from Minnesota. Nothing new for dems.

All correct.

ooph
03-14-2019, 12:18 PM
Honestly, I really do think you have a mental deficiency that blocks critical thinking in your brain.

This would make sense why he is unemployed and can spend his entire day defending commies online.

LeJR
03-14-2019, 12:46 PM
All
It's really complex, but basically as I understand it, it's not about making all income equal among everybody. That would obviously be a disaster and nobody is trying to do that. But there's data showing that income inequality has grown out of control and needs to be addressed. There's also data showing that as productivity has risen, wages have remained stagnant. So basically the rich are using the power of their money to take too much money that belongs to the productive workers. If we can get wages to match productivity, that will give many people the bootstraps they need in order to continue being productive. And the rich will still be rich.
"Income equality need to be addressed" is just jealousy. Multiple studies show that people would rather be poorer so that the rich are less rich, than be richer and the rich be realatively even more rich.

At the end of the day, people are jealous of the rich and want their money for them own.

"If we can get wages to match productivity"... Central planning does not work. There's something called supply and demand. The employer makes money because you make more money for them than they pay you. What is the point of a business if everyone is done at cost? How will the more efficient and effective busineeses compete over time?

A lot of nice catch phrases, little basis in reality.

And before someone posts that dumb chart that "real wages haven't risen over time" are the same people who think non-monetaary compensation isn't pay... The only reason why non-monetary benefits are so ingrained in American culture is because of that retard FDR and his great depression wage controls. Companies had to compete for employees and the only way they could was to offer more benefits over their competitors.

LeJR
03-14-2019, 12:49 PM
Yeah, who needs to own a house when you can rent and have a cheap iphone and a 60" 4k TV
Most people would rather rent in the heart of NYC and LA than live in the boonies.

It's ironic you bring up housing... Land is one of the most regulated and special interest infested markets of all time. When city planning has to power to control land supply and permits...

sandaltan
03-14-2019, 02:02 PM
so question: how much should rich people be taxed?

flat? scaled? what are the #'s?

personally, if you're making more than $25,000,000 in income every single year, i would be 100% ok with taxing the income above that $25,000,000 at 70%

Mark1T
03-14-2019, 02:17 PM
so question: how much should rich people be taxed?

flat? scaled? what are the #'s?

personally, if you're making more than $25,000,000 in income every single year, i would be 100% ok with taxing the income above that $25,000,000 at 70%

Like any other citizen relatively or better yet, a better thought out progressive tax with the maximum of say 20% to 25% and taking away some of the loopholes of the rich. People should not be penalized for becoming wealthy. That will stunt business, entrepreneurship, innovation and overall business growth.

You and some others want the slow-minded people to believe that the rich got there because they either took money away from others or they swindled it out of others or they just don't deserve it. You also believe that regular people should not have the opportunity to become rich if they work hard and build a successful business because that would defeat your argument that there should be no rich people in the first place.

So, if the rich are taxed to death at any level, where does the taxed money go? It goes to the government. Sure didn't help Obamacare. Didn't make it better. Sure wasn't the answer to healthcare.

For some reason people who don't make much or are jealous that they haven't become rich, listen to the socialist bullshiit and believe that they are victims and that rich people owe them a living. Fukking free-loaders.

sandaltan
03-14-2019, 02:29 PM
Like any other citizen relatively or better yet, a better thought out progressive tax with the maximum of say 20% to 25% and taking away some of the loopholes of the rich. People should not be penalized for becoming wealthy. That will stunt business, entrepreneurship, innovation and overall business growth.

You and some others want the slow-minded people to believe that the rich got there because they either took money away from others or they swindled it out of others or they just don't deserve it. You also believe that regular people should not have the opportunity to become rich if they work hard and build a successful business because that would defeat your argument that there should be no rich people in the first place.

So, if the rich are taxed to death at any level, where does the taxed money go? It goes to the government. Sure didn't help Obamacare. Didn't make it better. Sure wasn't the answer to healthcare.

For some reason people who don't make much or are jealous that they haven't become rich, listen to the socialist bullshiit and believe that they are victims and that rich people owe them a living. Fukking free-loaders.

i would not consider a high tax on income over $25,000,000 to be "taxed to death", not do i consider it a penalty. i think thats actually super fair.

now of course it would be great if we had a gov that wasnt corrupt and actually spent tax dollars in ways that benefit the people - but thats a separate issue

remember the tax only applies to income OVER that amount

pointguard12
03-14-2019, 02:32 PM
All
"Income equality need to be addressed" is just jealousy. Multiple studies show that people would rather be poorer so that the rich are less rich, than be richer and the rich be realatively even more rich.

...

Can you provide a link to any of these "multiple studies"? I couldn't find any supporting your claim.