Lol at the sheep not voting for Bernie sanders lmao srs

[omnip0tent]

He threatens the establishment the most. Ron Paul peaked too early. Things need to go horribly wrong to be right again.

This.

The system is broken. It's perpetual. The system(Govt) no longer works to keep the nation strong, the system(govt) works to keep the govt strong. /thread

The only reason I would like to see Bernie win is because I feel he has the biggest chance to make the current system crumble (through failure) which will allow us to rebuild from step 1 (or close to step 1 atleast) <=== Although I know this is unlikely and would have terrible consequences.

[A-DzO]

The Sanders view that the rich should pay their “fair share” of taxes might inspire a more radical agenda if we just could determine what Bernie means by “fair share.” (I suspect it simply means more taxes.) According to 2013 IRS data, individuals with adjusted gross income (AGI) of $250,000 or more filled just 2.4% of all tax returns yet they paid 48.9 % of all taxes; their average tax rate was 25.6%. By contrast, people with incomes of $50,000 or less paid just 6.2% of all taxes and their average tax rate was just 4.2%. Since the average federal tax rate on the “rich” is already 6 times the average tax rate on the (relatively) poor, one wonders what theory of fairness Bernie Sanders has in mind.

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/...atic-socialism

lol @ anyone who thinks giving the government more money is a good idea. They can spend it better than you?

[leafs43]

The slightly higher taxes are more than offset by lower health insurance costs.

10% of 50k is $5k.

Typical insurance for a healthy person is $250 a month or $3k a year.


3k>5k? Only in Bernie land.

[Retoaded]

The slightly higher taxes are more than offset by lower health insurance costs.

for starters, no one knows what the health insurance costs would be...it would take a colossal effort from economists to even attempt to figure that out, and they'd most likely get everything wrong like Obamacare.

secondly, you are adding a 2.2% tax to your payroll taxes to cover the national healthcare. for many of us whose employers handle our premiums, that is straight cash out of your wallet immediately. In addition, you are turning over the power of shopping insurance carriers to the government. what happens when the government program is twice as expensive to administer as they thought, which all government programs are. you have given the government the ability to tax your paycheck to cover it. well sorry guys looks like we are going to need 4% of your paycheck. no thanks joffrey.

[MattyMiscer]

Here's a math example for you OP. Say everyone pays the same tax rate, we'll go with 10% as an example. Poor person makes $30k per year, pays $3000 in taxes. Rich person makes $1million, pays $100k in taxes. With the same tax rate.


Math, how does it work?

[ContrarianIndi]

lol @ Hillary v Sanders.

[ANumber1]

As I advance in my career and earn more, I increasingly support raising taxes on the poor. The UK taxes income under about $45,000 at 20%. Compare brackets. We need to step up the pressure on these deadbeats.

[Buckeyez77]

LOL at people thinking that large corporations actually pay the taxes that they should according to the countries corporate tax rates

[zinkhan99]

On a static basis meaning grouping together every tax payer. 17% increase on the top %1 which means around 3-7% increase on the poorer classes, unless I'm comprehending that wrong

You are comprehending wrong.

The slightly higher taxes are more than offset by lower health insurance costs.

That is an overly optimistic scenario of 60% cost decrease. Vermont was supposed to be the beacon for single payer system in America, yet it failed due to potentially major negative effect on economy and not being able to cover the costs. Furthermore, look at Thorpe's analysis I have already posted - http://www.scribd.com/doc/296831690/...roposal#scribd

Thorpe has been a prominent advocate in favor of single payer healthcare system in Vermont and has been a major consultant on that reform for government in Vermont. Cliffs: Bernie's plan will yield over $1 trillion annual deficit.

[ven33]

LOL if you think Bernie's plans involve only taxing the rich.

I've worked very hard to get to nearly a 6 figure salary, and I can tell you I am not voting for Bernie. I don't want to see my hard earned money go into a pot that funds some kids going to college so he can major in psychology and drink/smoke for 4 years on my dime.

If you increases taxes on the rich, why would anyone strive to be rich? The rich will leave, the hard workers will leave, and all you'll be stuck with is a bunch of lazy people who want everyone to have the same amount of money.


Will not vote for Bernie / 10

[mynameisuntz]

If the GOP has done one thing brilliantly, it's been convincing the masses to vote against their best interests. This schema of "more taxes = bad" is just beyond naive. Meanwhile as we cling to such idiocy, other major nations are enjoying less costly healthcare, debt-free higher education, less poverty and crime, and greater quality of life.

"But my taxes will go up!"

[Fang2]

Doesn't matter who wins, nothing will change.

[mynameisuntz]

Doesn't matter who wins, nothing will change.

Except whoever wins will likely appoint somewhere between 2-4 supreme court justices, depending on whether they serve 4 or 8 years.

[DoWorkSon515]

I'll vote whoever disassembles the corporate plutocracy in this country. The president's power is limited. Corporations and elitist bankers control our lives in nearly ever fashion.

[maingains]

idc for what he wants to do with the tax money so why should i care if he taxes the rich more? It would go towards **** i dont care about

[njkid123]

LOL if you think Bernie's plans involve only taxing the rich.

I've worked very hard to get to nearly a 6 figure salary, and I can tell you I am not voting for Bernie. I don't want to see my hard earned money go into a pot that funds some kids going to college so he can major in psychology and drink/smoke for 4 years on my dime.

If you increases taxes on the rich, why would anyone strive to be rich? The rich will leave, the hard workers will leave, and all you'll be stuck with is a bunch of lazy people who want everyone to have the same amount of money.
Will not vote for Bernie / 10

This.

I live a typical bernie voter lifestyle. Dont work. Would makes sense for me to vote Bernie. But f that, Im pissed I dont have a job. Trump for me

[mynameisuntz]

I'll vote whoever disassembles the corporate plutocracy in this country. The president's power is limited. Corporations and elitist bankers control our lives in nearly ever fashion.

Bernie is probably the only candidate who is guaranteed to appoint SC judges who would overturn Citizens United. Hillary is a maybe, but likely none of the Republicans would.

[ProjectWheyhem]

To be completely honest as much as I disagree completely with his stances, I can at least respect people that are voting Sanders because he actually addresses issues that Americans are facing, it's the Hillary Clinton supporters that rustle me, voting for the continuation of the current state of affairs.

Just LOL if you aren't voting for Sanders or Trump. Genuinely don't care which one as long as it's one of those two. Unless you're voting for some outside libertarian just to prove a point, in which case GJDM.

[KyBrah32]

Doesn't matter who wins, nothing will change.

this

lol @ people who think the president is actually in charge. hes just a puppet for the super rich that control the country. the president has already been chosen so elections are redundant, and moreso to trick people into actually thinking were a democracy

[Miked1978]

I don't agree with him on a lot of issues and probably won't vote for him but at least he's honest and you know where he stands. You know what you are getting with Bernie unlike 99% of the other candidates. He's not going to go out and quote some bible verse just to appeal to the religious right. He's not going to go act like he's hunting deer to appeal to gun owners.

He is what he is. Wish more politicians were like him.

[ven33]

If the GOP has done one thing brilliantly, it's been convincing the masses to vote against their best interests. This schema of "more taxes = bad" is just beyond naive. Meanwhile as we cling to such idiocy, other major nations are enjoying less costly healthcare, debt-free higher education, less poverty and crime, and greater quality of life.

"But my taxes will go up!"

It seriously depends on how regulated the system truly is. If EVERYONE is contributing then so be it. But if you have 25% not contributing, yet they still get to take advantage of what the system offers then we have a problem.

Everyone sees how poorly regulated welfare is, and they link Bernie to the implementation of additional poorly regulated Welfare-esque programs. Hence, the problem.

[Retoaded]

I don't agree with him on a lot of issues and probably won't vote for him but at least he's honest and you know where he stands. You know what you are getting with Bernie unlike 99% of the other candidates. He's not going to go out and quote some bible verse just to appeal to the religious right. He's not going to go act like he's hunting deer to appeal to gun owners.

He is what he is. Wish more politicians were like him.

1978 GOATiest of GOAT years.

[Retoaded]

It seriously depends on how regulated the system truly is. If EVERYONE is contributing then so be it. But if you have 25% not contributing, yet they still get to take advantage of what the system offers then we have a problem.

Everyone sees how poorly regulated welfare is, and they link Bernie to the implementation of additional poorly regulated Welfare-esque programs. Hence, the problem.

try 47% not contributing.

[psychosylocibin]

Wow, so what you are saying is all those doctors, lawyers etc that work insane 70/80 hours a week with jobs with tremendous pressure and responsibility, after doing to school for 8 years, will now have to pay more of their fair share?

I get the overly rich being taxed more, but his taxes hit everyone, and hit WAY more people in mid to high level careers that we depend on for society to function.

Also think about this, that doctor, making 250,000 a year (After going to school for 10 years, working 70/80 hours a week, always being on call) ALREADY gets around ~100,000 in total money sucked out of his paycheck, or 40% after everything. And you want to tax him more, for all the work he has done? 100,000 he has paid. Isnt' that enough? The guy making 50,000 only pays 10,000 in taxes. He paid 10 TIMES AS MUCH, yet you want him to pay more



Phuck you OP. Phuck all you liberal phucktards. Can you even do math? No, you cannot, because you completely rely on idealism because it makes you "feel good". "feel food" does not equate to anything practical, dumbphucks.

You all should be shoved in a room and required to take a class on basic economics, followed by shadowing doctors/lawyers/etc etc and see what they do all day to understand why they get paid what they do and why they do not deserve to be taxed more.

[EhJayAych]

Will consider it

[mynameisuntz]

It seriously depends on how regulated the system truly is. If EVERYONE is contributing then so be it. But if you have 25% not contributing, yet they still get to take advantage of what the system offers then we have a problem.

Everyone sees how poorly regulated welfare is, and they link Bernie to the implementation of additional poorly regulated Welfare-esque programs. Hence, the problem.

Not EVERYONE can contribute, as a result of gross inequalities of wealth largely stemming from the inter-mingling of large corporations and government (something that Bernie is pretty much objectively most outspoken about with the track record to back it).



What should that bottom 20% contribute? And some would say this is actually a conservative estimate, depending on how wealth is defined.

Let me also make clear that simply throwing money into welfare programs as they are currently structured would be similarly ridiculous. These are programs which need reform and reinvestment, with reform clearly coming first.

A major problem I see is there's this myopic vision of what social services are (or could be), where there's this focus on the immediate with zero interest in the long-run. Education is a good example. Bernie talks about a publicly-funded higher education system, and everyone complains about costs. His price tag? About $80 billion per year (which would be covered by Wall Street speculation taxes, but let's pretend that's not the case and it would come from some progressive taxation system). Even IF your taxes go up, do you know what the ROI on an educated populace is? When it comes to things like innovation, entrepreneurship, lowering rates of crime, increasing employment, health behaviors, etc.? Everyone is all "but I'll have to pay <marginal amount> more each year!" and they completely overlook what could be saved long-term. It is not only in the best interest of those who would benefit from a debt-free education, but it is in YOUR best interest, too. Even if you are not taking advantage of the program itself.

That is applicable to many of the social programs that are already in place in most major nations (including ours, like infrastructure, police, libraries, public education, etc.) Look at what's happening in Flint as a wonderfully horrific example of why there needs to be strong social programs in place.

Wow, so what you are saying is all those doctors, lawyers etc that work insane 70/80 hours a week with jobs with tremendous pressure and responsibility, after doing to school for 8 years, will now have to pay more of their fair share?

I get the overly rich being taxed more, but his taxes hit everyone, and hit WAY more people in mid to high level careers that we depend on for society to function.

Also think about this, that doctor, making 250,000 a year (After going to school for 10 years, working 70/80 hours a week, always being on call) ALREADY gets around ~100,000 in total money sucked out of his paycheck, or 40% after everything. And you want to tax him more, for all the work he has done? 100,000 he has paid. Isnt' that enough? The guy making 50,000 only pays 10,000 in taxes. He paid 10 TIMES AS MUCH, yet you want him to pay more



Phuck you OP. Phuck all you liberal phucktards. Can you even do math? No, you cannot, because you completely rely on idealism because it makes you "feel good". "feel food" does not equate to anything practical, dumbphucks.

You all should be shoved in a room and required to take a class on basic economics, followed by shadowing doctors/lawyers/etc etc and see what they do all day to understand why they get paid what they do and why they do not deserve to be taxed more.

This is a ridiculous statement. How much of their taxes are going towards the military-industrial complex? How about towards the prison industry? How about towards arbitrary pharmaceutical prices inflating costs of health care?

Yet we want an educated and healthy populace, both of which will SAVE MONEY LONG-TERM, and you...complain? It's LUDICROUS. How much will taxes go up when ANY of the GOP/HRC increase military presence in the Middle East? But we want to educate Americans and offer them better preventative health (again, both of which will save tons of money long-term) and you...freak out.

[CheekyPhaggot]

wait, I thought that the top percent of rich people already pay the highest percent of taxes?

[ikepen]

Not EVERYONE can contribute, as a result of gross inequalities of wealth largely stemming from the inter-mingling of large corporations and government (something that Bernie is pretty much objectively most outspoken about with the track record to back it).



What should that bottom 20% contribute? And some would say this is actually a conservative estimate, depending on how wealth is defined.

Let me also make clear that simply throwing money into welfare programs as they are currently structured would be similarly ridiculous. These are programs which need reform and reinvestment, with reform clearly coming first.

A major problem I see is there's this myopic vision of what social services are (or could be), where there's this focus on the immediate with zero interest in the long-run. Education is a good example. Bernie talks about a publicly-funded higher education system, and everyone complains about costs. His price tag? About $80 billion per year (which would be covered by Wall Street speculation taxes, but let's pretend that's not the case and it would come from some progressive taxation system). Even IF your taxes go up, do you know what the ROI on an educated populace is? When it comes to things like innovation, entrepreneurship, lowering rates of crime, increasing employment, health behaviors, etc.? Everyone is all "but I'll have to pay <marginal amount> more each year!" and they completely overlook what could be saved long-term. It is not only in the best interest of those who would benefit from a debt-free education, but it is in YOUR best interest, too. Even if you are not taking advantage of the program itself.

That is applicable to many of the social programs that are already in place in most major nations (including ours, like infrastructure, police, libraries, public education, etc.) Look at what's happening in Flint as a wonderfully horrific example of why there needs to be strong social programs in place.



This is a ridiculous statement. How much of their taxes are going towards the military-industrial complex? How about towards the prison industry? How about towards arbitrary pharmaceutical prices inflating costs of health care?

Yet we want an educated and healthy populace, both of which will SAVE MONEY LONG-TERM, and you...complain? It's LUDICROUS. How much will taxes go up when ANY of the GOP/HRC increase military presence in the Middle East? But we want to educate Americans and offer them better preventative health (again, both of which will save tons of money long-term) and you...freak out.

I applaud that. You are one of the very few to see past the tip of your nose. Best post I have read in a long time here. will rep on RC

[zinkhan99]

If the GOP has done one thing brilliantly, it's been convincing the masses to vote against their best interests. This schema of "more taxes = bad" is just beyond naive. Meanwhile as we cling to such idiocy, other major nations are enjoying less costly healthcare, debt-free higher education, less poverty and crime, and greater quality of life.

"But my taxes will go up!"

List countries with all of these aspects and equal contribution, and also list the threshold for wages and quality of life above poverty.

[Rayzor84]

I thought bernie sanders WAS the sheep candidate...

I guess im wrong?







lmfao... THREAD

Sadly this. Every election there's one candidate that is basically chosen to represent this specific group: college kids especially liberal arts majors, unemployed stoners, hipsters of all types. Last time it was Ron Paul. This time it is Sanders. This is the real sheep candidate. It's the one that gains you the most ridicule for disagreeing, the one that typically promises free this and that or forgiveness on some financial burden, and that sheep perceive to be the next hero of the down trodden. The closer their platform is to a socialist society, the stronger these hipsters and inexperienced young students will support them.

Sanders supports under age 23 will likely look back and ask wtf they were thinking, when they gain some real world understanding and experience as to finance and politics. For the rest, it's those that remain super ultra liberal either because they are unemployed as "free spirits experiencing all life has to offer the soul" or those that simply hope for more government hand outs every day.

With that said, no candidate is looking ideal. But sanders is the flavor of this election to this demographic, in 2016.