George W. Bush got to play president

In fairness, I don't know how old John is or how sincere his concerns are, but my dad (who is a Democrat FWIW) is convinced there was a real economic downturns in the 1970s caused in part by the top tax brackets having too high tax rates stifling business creation, so I think there is a sincere concern Sanders policies would cause a return to that.

I myself have only TWO brain cells to rub together.

The way I understand economics, it's better for business to have a high personal tax rate because the owners have incentive to reinvest in the business instead of declaring most of the profits as salary.

The result of higher taxes is more funneling into the market to avoud the taxes, yes.

Wrong again! It's the opposite. They have money to degen with because of low taxes. If taxes are high owners have incentive to keep the money in the business.

Like, how do you not know this and you're in education? I'm a blue-collar schmuck who barely graduated high school.

I thought I muted you? Clearly not doing so was a mistake. You bring dick to the discussion.

Yes, the feds are pushing a string up a gutter down spout and as expected it isn't clearing the clog in the downspout that is at the roof line. The Fed has attempted to lure people into borrowing more money and there ploy has failed as people are refusing to actually borrow as much money as the Fed wants.

Civil unrest doesn't occur as quality of life rises faster than in the past.

Mickey,
I think we're all a little tired of being lectured by a guy who doesn't know the difference between then and than.

Protip: use "then" when time is involved.

How are you paying full taxes instead of investing in the market to not understand this?

Today will be better than yesterday, but this year will be crazier than last.

Jagoff, if you're a business owner you can't just take the profits and start degening in the market. You have to declare those profits as income before you can do that. If the tax rate on the rich is high, you'll have incentive to keep more profits in the business.

Please smarten up before responding or it will be obvious you are a moron or a troll.

I just looked at zillow and to find a place paying $2k in rent in my good sized city you have to look at 3-4 bedroom homes with 2-3 baths. I just saw one that was 2k and it is 4 bdrm, 2 bath, marble counter tops in kitchen with one of those huge (brand new) refrigerator/freezes that, bathroom looks like it just got re-done very nicely, 2 car garage and it a nice middle class neighborhood.

I assume you live in a big city. My city is between the 20th and 40th biggest US cities. By the way I have heard a few radio ads where a couple of the bigger employers in the city are hiring people starting at $15/hr + benefits.

No doubt that's the case most everywhere. But Kelhus lives in California. And in the LA area I think.

I am well aware that many rich and many poor people disagree with me that income inequality is never and will never be a problem in a country as free as the US currently is.

Raising taxes on income has the same effect as raising the prices on anything else. If the price of bread goes up $2.50 a loaf then less people will buy breed. If the cost of working goes up people will try to hide income (legally or illegally) and rich people & business owners who can afford to will retire earlier or work less as bringing home less money than they previously did for the same work gives them less incentive.

If that is the case it seems silly for us to look at what is around him to make any real conclusions on what normal people are facing today like he asked us to do.

Such a cute little **** hair, you are. Why would a business owner put this about to be newly taxed money back into their business instead of handing it over to a Merrill Lynch or the like?

Quick reminder to those who think otherwise: Corporations do not pay taxes. Customers pay taxes.

If the corporation can't generate the necessary profit to justify its existence, those capital and human resources are used for one that does.

In the short term, sure, you can get corporations to pay more taxes. But it takes very little time for those added expenses to filter down to the people who pay the corporations for its goods and services.

Once the production capacity of those generous souls who are willing to work for free under the new confiscatory tax rates dries up, the extra demand has nowhere to go but the places that raised their prices to maintain profitability. I don't know why this is so difficult for your average lefty to understand.

I also don't quite understand the end game scenario for the Bernie Bros of the country. Bernie himself is out there spreading the propaganda about companies like Amazon not paying any taxes, while completely ignoring the fact that without the ability to book carryover losses, Amazon never would've existed in the first place. Is the world at large better off now that I can order a mahogany pleb-smashing paddle in my underwear and have it delivered to my door with free shipping in under 48 hours? I'd say so.

You know who the real winner is here? The guy making artisan quality pleb-smashing paddles in his basement who is now able to reach a global audience with his wares via Amazon distribution. Thanks, Obama.

Agree with this. Bernie is the disruption and right now things are atleast OK in many people's minds that a disruption is a big risk.

Economy slowing or recession is what it would likely need to propel him. And given the election is only 9 months away now, seems unlikely.

It's acceptable and standard in business (Tommy Boy), but not when you are the VP of the USA.
Why is this not bothering anyone???

No, stakeholders, of which customers are part, pay taxes. Companies can offload taxes to the appropriate stakeholder when necessary. Sometimes the company will offload the taxes to the customer in an increased cost, other times they'll offload it to shareholders, workers, suppliers, etc in decreased profitability, lower wages, etc.

I do think Bernie is misguided in that he's subscribing to a more German form of organizing society called corporatism where the well being of citizens flow through businesses and businesses are responsible for providing for the things that people want, like healthcare, housing, etc and the state is there constantly making sure corporations are providing what they "should" aka being "good corporate citizens"

But corporations are designed to try and minimize their expenditures, aka wages and benefits for workers, so it's a contradiction and the state always has to step in and bop corporations on the head, like Bernie's doing.

Better just to provide those things through the state itself like the Nordic countries do so you can let businesses be flexible, but workers as citizens don't have to worry about losing everything if their company goes under. They'll be provided for by the state.

[


Yeah, but as bad as you need a few, I can't spare any...

Moron, if they put the profits back in the business then they don't pay any individual taxes.

I've explained this you halfwit! Try and keep up.

Things are not OK. Companies bring in record profits and GDP is up up up. Unemployment is low as ever. But 60% of the country can't afford a 500$ expense. 90million ppl are at least underinsured and 10s of millions more pay exhorbitant insurance rates. Homeless population is going up in many big cities

These 3 things are all great for the poor, middle class and rich.

Are all or some of these numbers better or worse than 10 and 20 years ago? What do you think is causing this to get better or worse? How much should we blame people for not understanding how to budget and save and how much should we blame government for not encouraging people to save and for taxing people too much?