Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

I thought Bernie was going to tax the top 1% of the country. Why would he increase the taxes across the board?

Why did Willie Sutton rob banks?

Wrong. The government established a stable environment for you to succeed. Now they are asking for help but you think you shouldn't have to.

Are you accusing MBison of not paying taxes?

 

[Frozenprince]

Wrong. The government established a stable environment for you to succeed. Now they are asking for help but you think you shouldn't have to.

Well technically, right now the government isn't proposing nor asking anything at all.

 

[basic_element]

Why did you link to this Canadian filth.

I actually don't really know who the guy is. A co-worker sent me the link. What makes him a "Canadian filth"?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Wrong. The government established a stable environment for you to succeed. Now they are asking for help but you think you shouldn't have to.

Fuck that. They can reallocate from what tax revenue they already have.

They mismanage revenue and the answer is to give the government more? Fuck that.

 

[Tesseract]

Bernie Sanders is a communist probably wants to socialize internet speeds

 

[Frozenprince]

3.5% of the GDP for something that produces fucking nothing is batshit insane. Cutting the military budget to 1% of the GDP is going to account for lower tax increases. Taxes are obviously still going to increase.

You could probably cut $200B and still have them maintain competence.

 

[Arksy]

Bernie Sanders is a communist probably wants to socialize internet speeds

Does that mean he's going to tax every Mbps people get above 50?

 

[benjipwns]

I actually don't really know who the guy is. A co-worker sent me the link. What makes him a "Canadian filth"?

He's Canadian, it's inherent.

Spoiler

I am joking, I mean, some of them are okay. He just sucks and isn't as funny or as smart as he thinks he is. I closed the tab as soon as I saw who it was, so I can't discuss his argument.

Does that mean he's going to tax every Mbps people get above 50?

We get Mbps over 50?!?!?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Nor will they ever be ready to take the necessary steps. At this point, I feel like America should just bring back Ronald Reagan and make him the eternal ruler of the USA. That should suite their needs (if this thread is any indication to go by) real good. Bernie Sanders is a visionary, he could have been the one to bring America to the modern age of equality, but alas....

GAF is primarily leftist, there is no doubt about that. So I ask, what is so progressive about only caring for your own needs and not the poor man, the downtrodden man? You're on a videogame forums. That's a luxury many can only dream of. You're better off than you think. Also, a lot of the progressiveness here is for the downtrodden of society such as minorities as oppressed groups such as women and homosexuals. Would you not also say them, that the poor are also worthy of respect and deserve support? The common rhetoric that gets thrown around in this thread is that you worked for where you are. My answer to that is everybody works. Poor people aren't lazy, its not like they don't just sit around twiddling there thumbs.

This is such a great speech, too bad rhetoric can't conjure up the money that many Americans wouldn't have to pay the higher tax burden it's endorsing.

 

[turtle553]

3.5% of the GDP for something that produces fucking nothing is batshit insane. Cutting the military budget to 1% of the GDP is going to account for lower tax increases. Taxes are obviously still going to increase.

Except for the fact it employs 1.3M Americans and keeps millions more employed who provide goods and services for the military. There is definite waste, but it's not like the money gets burnt. It goes back into the economy.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

Isn't the vast majority of the funds spent on buying equipment that isn't in any way essential anyway? I seriously never understood the military culture in the US. The US is pretty fiscally conservative except when it has to do with the army. Being a military officer is pretty much akin to belonging in the communist nomenclature of the USSR.

Unless you leave it or come back from a war on disability.

 

[dysonEA]

Would happily pay more in taxes to make my life and the lives of people around me better. Unfortunate that many others don't feel the same.

Paying more taxes wont make others or your life better. Why do people trust the government to do the right thing with money from more taxes? ... come on now.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Except for the fact it employs 1.3M Americans and keeps millions more employed who provide goods and services for the military. There is definite waste, but it's not like the money gets burnt. It goes back into the economy.

Let's also emphasize that it keeps jobs here in the US too since they don't outsource those to other countries.

 

[Wheatly]

Isn't the vast majority of the funds spent on buying equipment that isn't in any way essential anyway? I seriously never understood the military culture in the US. The US is pretty fiscally conservative except when it has to do with the army. Being a military officer is pretty much akin to belonging in the communist nomenclature of the USSR.

Who will pay for all the lobsters for the hardworking folks at Lockheed Martin?

 

[benjipwns]

Isn't the vast majority of the funds spent on buying equipment that isn't in any way essential anyway? I seriously never understood the military culture in the US. The US is pretty fiscally conservative except when it has to do with the army. Being a military officer is pretty much akin to belonging in the communist nomenclature of the USSR.

The U.S. military is subordinate to civilian control. When the Air Force says it wants a jet that does this, this and that for this much. Congress interprets it as we need a jet that's built here, here, here, here, here, here, and here and for as much as possible. So after you get through any garbage in the first process, you get all the garbage of the second added on top. Oh, and then everything the company they contract with adds.

Then we dump it in the ocean. Or use it for years just because it exists.

There's a great HBO "based on a true story based on a book" film about the Bradley fighting vehicle, The Pentagon Wars featuring Kelsey Grammer, Cary Elwes and John C. McGinley. If you have Amazon Prime, it's free on there. Unsure about elsewhere.

You could also read the book I suppose.

EDIT: Here's one of my favorite parts of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

"Could you explain why you put those portholes there?!?!?"

EDIT2: Love this part too, because of Grammer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E8DQSHkhGE

"How much?!?" in that "Frasier gets caught" voice

 

[Box]

Yes, the company pays for part of health insurance currently. That's technically right but that's not the issue. The issue is the psychology of it. To the employee it is a perk, not a monetary value. In fact most employees have no idea what their health coverage is worth let alone what their employer pays for it. That alone means the company has all the power since the employee has no concept of what they should be compensated for. To top that off, the net result is they haven't lost anything in their eyes since they still have health coverage. The combination of these two gives the power to the companies to give as much or as little as they want and the employee won't be the wiser. That means companies will pay as little to nothing and get away with it. They will not pay you most of the value.

You have to ignore what is technically correct, but you fail to factor in the psychology and ignorance of the employee in to this. Hell this thread alone shows how ignorant people are about what things will cost. People who want UHC and who supported Bernie are balking at the notion that their taxes are going up substantially. If they couldn't see that coming to get those perks, what makes you think they have any concept of what their current health care is worth in dollar value and the fact that if it was switched from their employer to the government, the fact that they lost a certain amount of money that was being compensated for their employment?

So again, there is no $X + $Y for Health Insurance; there is only $X + Health Insurance as far as most employees are concerned and companies can easily take advantage of that. What's right and technically correct doesn't match up with what the reality will be.

This is ridiculous. People are not so ignorant that they don't understand that they get health insurance subsidies from their employer and that it carries a significant value. In a world where people voted for this plan, they would also understand the basics of how it's supposed to work.

 

[Future]

Tax plan means jack shit if congress cannot vote in single payer healthcare

Problem with Bernie is he is too extreme. Huge tax hikes making both education and healthcare near free. How is he going to defeat the majority opposition that doesn't believe? What's going to happen to insurance companies and schools that depend on a certain revenue stream to remain prestige?

 

[cpp_is_king]

Wrong. The government established a stable environment for you to succeed. Now they are asking for help but you think you shouldn't have to.

They're asking for more help, and he's saying he helps enough already

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

They're asking for more help, and he's saying he helps enough already

He doesn't, though. Almost no one does compared to when "America was great".

 

[benjipwns]

They're asking for more help, and he's saying he helps enough already

And they say he doesn't. So they're asking.

Or else.

 

[Indicate]

This was posted somewhere in this thread which I never knew existed until now. I'm reposting again for those that didn't see it.

Tax Policy Center is Wrong: Sanders’ Tax and Medicare-for-all Plan Will Save the Middle Class $3,240 a Year

Warren Gunnels with Bernie campaign responds to TPC analysis:

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced a bold plan to rebuild the middle class, raise wages and reduce the poverty rate during his presidential campaign. At a time when income and wealth inequality are skyrocketing, Sanders pays for his economic agenda by making Wall Street, large corporations and the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share in taxes.

Unlike Citizens for Tax Justice, the Tax Policy Center chose to analyze Sanders’ tax plan in a vacuum without taking into account the savings the American people would gain under his Medicare-for-all plan. That is misleading.

The analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice found that 95 percent of American households will see their take-home pay go up, not down, under Sanders’ Medicare- for-all plan which is paid for by his progressive tax plan.

Citizens for Tax Justice also found that middle class families would see their take-home pay go up by more than $3,200 a year under Sanders’ plan.

Not only did the Tax Policy Center fail to estimate the savings the American people will gain under Medicare-for-all, they also fail to count the economic gains that would be achieved by Sanders’ plan to rebuild the middle class.

Sanders has a plan to create and maintain at least 13 million jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. It is widely accepted among many economists that rebuilding roads, bridges, drinking water facilities, airports and other infrastructure needs creates jobs for Americans in the short-term while allowing commerce to flow more smoothly in the long-term, a win-win for prosperity in the U.S. The Tax Policy Center did not look at that.

Sanders has a plan to make public colleges and universities tuition free that would save the typical middle class family $9,400 a year. Creating a workforce that is more educated and less bogged down in student debt would benefit the economy immensely. The Tax Policy Center did not look at that.

Sanders’ has a plan to extend and expand Social Security boosting the income of senior citizens by an average of about $1,600 a year. The Tax Policy Center did not look at Bernie’s plan to expand Social Security.

Sanders has a plan to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour and to protect the pensions of more than 1.5 million workers. The Tax Policy Center did not look at that.

Sanders’ tax plan is the mechanism for achieving universal health care and education, creating jobs, and a secure retirement. Without estimating the benefits the American people would gain under these initiatives, the Tax Policy Center’s report is inaccurate and one-sided.

The American middle class has been disappearing for 40-years. This is a big problem that demands big solutions.

The reality is that Sanders’ plans will make our tax system more progressive and will make the investments that are key to our future prosperity.

 

[benjipwns]

He doesn't, though. Almost no one does compared to when "America was great".

Someone does:

 

[Macam]

I thought Bernie was going to tax the top 1% of the country. Why would he increase the taxes across the board? I hope this gets brought up in the next democratic debate.

It's already been addressed.

 

[Marty Chinn]

This is ridiculous. People are not so ignorant that they don't understand that they get health insurance subsidies from their employer and that it carries a significant value. In a world where people voted for this plan, they would also understand the basics of how it's supposed to work.

It's not ridiculous at all. We're talking about a country where people don't know how credit cards work. We're talking about a country where people don't understand how tax brackets work. We're talking about a country with most people having poor financial planning and don't plan for retirement even when they can. We're talking about a country and in this very thread where people didn't realize that all these government programs that they thought would be "free" actually needed to be paid for by people through taxes and it would cost a lot to do so. People are ignorant when it comes to financial issues and our country has poor financial education. Psychologically they see medical benefits as a perk and not as monetary compensation. I guarantee you 99% of the people haven't a single clue or know a ballpark figure of how much their company pays for their health insurance. If they don't know that, how can they even begin to have a mindset or understanding of how much additional to their salary they are being compensated or what the monetary value is? When people talk about how much they make, they talk about their salary, not their salary and the cost of their health benefits. So given that people have no idea what this cost is or what the value is, how can they even begin to be wise of how much they should be compensated for if they start getting health care from the government? In all likelyhood, they'll get peanuts or nothing at all and they'll still think they didn't lose anything because they still have health care. Forget the tax break, if simply the government offered them health care and companies stopped paying for it but didn't compensate you in anyway, I guarantee you nobody would think they lost anything when in reality they did. That is how companies will get away from it and whenever people see tax hikes, they blame it on the government and never think that the company is the one that owes them. It's naive to think otherwise.

 

[Macam]

Employing people with public funds on the grounds of helping the economy. How is this different from communism? Would you accept it if the government hired 1 million people to dig holes in the sand on the grounds that it would be good for the economy?

For starters, that isn't communism.

Also, we do this now. It's called infrastructure spending. If we create holes by things blowing up, it's called military spending. Neither one is communism.

 

[GrizzNKev]

Seriously cringing read some posts here. It's all about ME ME ME ME. Society as a whole would benefit from these policies.

Honestly it makes me sick. This shit will never make it because of the general selfishness of Americans.

 

[shawnbuddy]

My insurance isn't fully subsidized by my employer, but I'd still be paying a lot more. Also, the free college doesn't help me directly. I don't have kids and I still have student loan debt from my college, so I'd kind of feel like I was paying for everyone else's college when I got no help with my debt. I might be willing to pay this if all of what Bernie is planning could come to pass because there should be overall economic benefits, but I can understand a lot of people would be scared of it.

 

[Timeaisis]

Who goes to the doctor enough every year to have $5,000 extra a year in taxes "balance out" against what they would pay in deductibles? Seriously.

 

[Box]

It's not ridiculous at all. We're talking about a country where people don't know how credit cards work. We're talking about a country where people don't understand how tax brackets work. We're talking about a country with most people having poor financial planning and don't plan for retirement even when they can. We're talking about a country and in this very thread where people didn't realize that all these government programs that they thought would be "free" actually needed to be paid for by people through taxes and it would cost a lot to do so. People are ignorant when it comes to financial issues and our country has poor financial education. Psychologically they see medical benefits as a perk and not as monetary compensation. I guarantee you 99% of the people haven't a single clue or know a ballpark figure of how much their company pays for their health insurance. If they don't know that, how can they even begin to have a mindset or understanding of how much additional to their salary they are being compensated or what the monetary value is? When people talk about how much they make, they talk about their salary, not their salary and the cost of their health benefits. So given that people have no idea what this cost is or what the value is, how can they even begin to be wise of how much they should be compensated for if they start getting health care from the government? In all likelyhood, they'll get peanuts or nothing at all and they'll still think they didn't lose anything because they still have health care. Forget the tax break, if simply the government offered them health care and companies stopped paying for it but didn't compensate you in anyway, I guarantee you nobody would think they lost anything when in reality they did. That is how companies will get away from it and whenever people see tax hikes, they blame it on the government and never think that the company is the one that owes them. It's naive to think otherwise.

I'm naive? You're just assuming that everything that can go wrong will. You provide no justification other than your personal belief about how other people think. What do you actually know about psychology? You haven't referenced any studies or findings. This is classic cynicism. I know you probably have many frustrations with corporations and American voters, but that doesn't mean that every progressive policy will be foiled by greedy companies.

 

[TrounceX]

Honestly it makes me sick. This shit will never make it because of the general selfishness of Americans.

Oh c'mon. I don't think anyone here is against contributing to the betterment of society, but if that contribution involves a severe drop in quality of life, well sorry, but fuck that. Some of us already paid off crippling student loan debt, and / or receive healthcare for cheap through our employers. So it goes a bit deeper than "general selfishness", it's paying a significant amount for services that will have little direct benefit for us. Again, if it was a modest hike, ok then I'm onboard. But this is too much. I have a family to look out for. This is not about the nature of Americans, it's about human nature. Be reasonable.

Here's what I'll say: Maybe if wages weren't so stagnant in America and actually kept up with our productivity then this wouldn't be such a hotly contested issue and a lot more of us would be onboard. Because even with this proposal it still feels like the middle class is taking the brunt of the sacrifice.

 

[Robert Ashley]

I can't believe you guys are debating this like it would ever actually happen.

 

[brainchild]

Warren Gunnels with Bernie campaign responds to TPC analysis:

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced a bold plan to rebuild the middle class, raise wages and reduce the poverty rate during his presidential campaign. At a time when income and wealth inequality are skyrocketing, Sanders pays for his economic agenda by making Wall Street, large corporations and the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share in taxes.

Unlike Citizens for Tax Justice, the Tax Policy Center chose to analyze Sanders’ tax plan in a vacuum without taking into account the savings the American people would gain under his Medicare-for-all plan. That is misleading.

The analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice found that 95 percent of American households will see their take-home pay go up, not down, under Sanders’ Medicare- for-all plan which is paid for by his progressive tax plan.

Citizens for Tax Justice also found that middle class families would see their take-home pay go up by more than $3,200 a year under Sanders’ plan.

Not only did the Tax Policy Center fail to estimate the savings the American people will gain under Medicare-for-all, they also fail to count the economic gains that would be achieved by Sanders’ plan to rebuild the middle class.

Sanders has a plan to create and maintain at least 13 million jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. It is widely accepted among many economists that rebuilding roads, bridges, drinking water facilities, airports and other infrastructure needs creates jobs for Americans in the short-term while allowing commerce to flow more smoothly in the long-term, a win-win for prosperity in the U.S. The Tax Policy Center did not look at that.

Sanders has a plan to make public colleges and universities tuition free that would save the typical middle class family $9,400 a year. Creating a workforce that is more educated and less bogged down in student debt would benefit the economy immensely. The Tax Policy Center did not look at that.

Sanders’ has a plan to extend and expand Social Security boosting the income of senior citizens by an average of about $1,600 a year. The Tax Policy Center did not look at Bernie’s plan to expand Social Security.

Sanders has a plan to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour and to protect the pensions of more than 1.5 million workers. The Tax Policy Center did not look at that.

Sanders’ tax plan is the mechanism for achieving universal health care and education, creating jobs, and a secure retirement. Without estimating the benefits the American people would gain under these initiatives, the Tax Policy Center’s report is inaccurate and one-sided.

The American middle class has been disappearing for 40-years. This is a big problem that demands big solutions.

The reality is that Sanders’ plans will make our tax system more progressive and will make the investments that are key to our future prosperity.

The only thing that's missing from this incredible retort is a mic drop.

Context is key. Always has been, always will be. Though honestly, even in a vacuum, the tax hikes aren't terrible.

 

[digdug2k]

There's some kinda weird assumption in Sander's plans that your employer will say "Hey, I don't have to pay for your health insurance anymore, so instead I'm going to give everyone a 10% raise to cover the tax increase they're about to get". That seems.... unlikely to happen for most people. i.e. most employers will just say "Yay! I don't have to pay for your insurance anymore!"

Is that tax imposed in some strange way to cover that, or is everyone just like "it will never actually happen so don't worry"?

 

[StickSoldier]

I make around $22,000 per year, give or take, how would I be sitting?

 

[FyreWulff]

I am. I've also worked extremely hard for it and continue to work extremely hard for it. And if I want to be charitable and give more of my income, that should be my decision not my governments.

You accomplished all you did because society gave you the tools, knowledge, and infrastructure to get there. Pay your share back in.

 

[benjipwns]

You accomplished all you did because society gave you the tools, knowledge, and infrastructure to get there. Pay your share back in.

He already is.

And the government is not society.

 

[Marty Chinn]

I'm naive? You're just assuming that everything that can go wrong will. You provide no justification other than your personal belief about how other people think. What do you actually know about psychology? You haven't referenced any studies or findings. This is classic cynicism. I know you probably have many frustrations with corporations and American voters, but that doesn't mean that every progressive policy will be foiled by greedy companies.

Actually, I don't have frustrations with corporations or American voters. It's just a realistic view of what will happen. The whole stance of Bernie is that corporations have their interests and they utilize politics to persuade getting their way. Typically people frown about this because their interest benefits the company and not the employees. If it was all about the employees, Bernie and his supporters wouldn't be taking the anti corporation stance. Let's face it, corporations have an obligation to the stock holders and they'll do what it takes to maximize profits. That's just a reality of business and I have no ill will towards that. I just understand the realities of it.

Now with all that in mind, what is the incentive for companies to pass on all the savings to their employees when the employees don't even know what it costs or what it's worth? Why wouldn't they try to give as little as possible knowing that their employees don't even know what they're owed? That amount is never disclosed. I'm not even calling them greedy, but there's no reason they would do this. To think this will happen is the same mind set of trickle down economics working. The money saved in taxes will be passed along to the people. It doesn't happen there and in any other case, so why would it happen here? Also are you trying to pretend that all those points I made about the financial knowledge of people is not true? Hell you can look at GAF alone to see people don't understand how the tax brackets work, and that's something simple and something people deal with every year that's in their face.

 

[FyreWulff]

He already is.

And the government is not society.

Yeah look at the crumbling roads from tax cuts being subsidized by the poor so corporations can keep more of the money dead to the economy.

 

[brainchild]

There's some kinda weird assumption in Sander's plans that your employer will say "Hey, I don't have to pay for your health insurance anymore, so instead I'm going to give everyone a 10% raise to cover the tax increase they're about to get". That seems.... unlikely to happen for most people. i.e. most employers will just say "Yay! I don't have to pay for your insurance anymore!"

Is that tax imposed in some strange way to cover that, or is everyone just like "it will never actually happen so don't worry"?

They're not getting a raise directly; their deductions on their gross payroll will just decrease, since their paychecks won't have to directly pay for insurance anymore (it will be paid for by annual taxes instead), which will effectively cause their net income to increase, indirectly.

 

[Coldsun]

You accomplished all you did because society gave you the tools, knowledge, and infrastructure to get there. Pay your share back in.

If he pays taxes, he's paying a share. Who's to say what his 'share' should be? The government? They have but have constantly deemed that his share should be more and more because they're incapable of spending the collected money wisely.

 

[benjipwns]

Let's face it, corporations have an obligation to the stock holders and they'll do what it takes to maximize profits. That's just a reality of business and I have no ill will towards that.

Also kinda the law.

At least if you're incorporated in Delaware.

 

[FyreWulff]

If he pays taxes, he's paying a share. Who's to say what his 'share' should be? The government? They have but have constantly deemed that his share should be more and more because they're incapable of spending the collected money wisely.

No man is an island.

 

[benjipwns]

No man is an island.

Man is very willing to obey the law of duty, serve his country, and oblige his friends; but he wishes to labor when he pleases, where he pleases, and as much as he pleases. He wishes to dispose of his own time, to be governed only by necessity, to choose his friendships, his recreation, and his discipline; to act from judgment, not by command; to sacrifice himself through selfishness, not through servile obligation.

 

[Pagusas]

They're not getting a raise directly; their deductions on their gross payroll will just decrease, since their paychecks won't have to directly pay for insurance anymore (it will be paid for by annual taxes instead), which will effectively cause their net income to increase, indirectly.

...by like $35 a paycheck for some, esspecially those who already have employers paying a large portion of the actual premium, no where near enough to offset the tax increase. Your employer isnt going to give you back what the healhplan ACTUALLY cost, only the premium you saw you were paying, which is often only a fraction of the true cost.

 

[lastflowers]

Also kinda the law.

At least if you're incorporated in Delaware.

For what is the incentive structure between pleasing both the shareholder and the employee?

 

[FyreWulff]

He wishes to dispose of his own time, to be governed only by necessity

And we choose to spend it here, which is pretty much like a clown trying to do stand up at open mic night in a Dane Cook owned Vegas-strip bar. You may feel like you got somewhere but you're still giving Dane Cook money.

 

[Mael]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-8spGrLrUM

Watch this video and then tell me if cutting military budget is still the solution.

That was the most unfunny shit I've ever seen.
Like a black hole where humour goes to die after a Bill Maher show.
This was horrible.

 

[Box]

Actually, I don't have frustrations with corporations or American voters. It's just a realistic view of what will happen. The whole stance of Bernie is that corporations have their interests and they utilize politics to persuade getting their way. Typically people frown about this because their interest benefits the company and not the employees. If it was all about the employees, Bernie and his supporters wouldn't be taking the anti corporation stance. Let's face it, corporations have an obligation to the stock holders and they'll do what it takes to maximize profits. That's just a reality of business and I have no ill will towards that. I just understand the realities of it.

Now with all that in mind, what is the incentive for companies to pass on all the savings to their employees when the employees don't even know what it costs or what it's worth? Why wouldn't they try to give as little as possible knowing that their employees don't even know what they're owed? That amount is never disclosed. I'm not even calling them greedy, but there's no reason they would do this. To think this will happen is the same mind set of trickle down economics working. The money saved in taxes will be passed along to the people. It doesn't happen there and in any other case, so why would it happen here? Also are you trying to pretend that all those points I made about the financial knowledge of people is not true? Hell you can look at GAF alone to see people don't understand how the tax brackets work, and that's something simple and something people deal with every year that's in their face.

Yeah ok, I'm kind of losing interest here, mainly because we're talking about a theoretical world in which Bernie Sanders not only wins the Presidency but that the movement behind him is so strong that it forces this law through Congress. In that world, I don't know how many of your assumptions apply. I really just wanted to challenge the idea that people are going to always be misled and taken advantage of. Because you're really just basing it on your belief about people.

 

[kiryogi]

As much as this is what it would take for a massive change and I support the Bern et. all, this is just not going to fly at all with the opposition and alike. No way at all.

We can believe in it as much as we want, as we're the more liberal minded here, but what about the conservatives/republicans/libertarians. Absolutely not.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

As much as this is what it would take and I support the Bern and all, this is just not going to fly at all with the opposition and alike. No way at all.

We can believe in it as much as we want, as we're the more liberal minded here, but what about the conservatives/republicans/libertarians. Absolutely not.

Bro even the liberals here are counting their money and realizing they can't afford to take this hit. It's not even about political philosophy, it's about how much money you have to offer up to the government and most people don't have any laying around which can be specifically earmarked for such steep tax increases on the poor and middle classes.