It's about 10% according to betting sites, and most of that equity is probably Hillary facing charges.

So you're saying there's a 5-10% chance she's facing charges then?

Page 3 of this document, #5. The important things to emphasize is that tax brackets are MARGINAL. The "beyond" part is critical, it keys in to the idea of marginal tax brackets that mystifies a lot of people who just dump off their W2 to a "tax man"). There is no such thing for example as getting an income increase and losing money because you "moved up into a higher tax bracket".


-----------


As for small business, I don't have anything about that in the "BIG 5" misconception document. I imagine there are two main claims: one that a paying a $15 min wage is going to hurt small businesses's bottom line, and another (if they didn't offer healthcare before) that the new payroll tax will decrease their profits.

I suppose my rebuttal to that would be in multiple parts. If the small business owner is someone who currently offers private health insurance, you can easily swing them with #1 i think. If they don't currently offer private health insurance, it's a tougher sell; their out of pocket expenses will undoubtedly go up if assuming that their current business won't see any growth in consumers. As a result, you have to convince them that the logic chain in #2 is valid.

(1) Single payer healthcare. I'm sure a lot of small businesses love to hire people part time, because it means they don't have to provide them health care. Granted, you aren't REQUIRED to provide health care to employees even if they are full time (if under 50 employees, which most small businesses fall into I imagine), but this has basically become the norm for most businesses as far as I know. Why? Because it provides yet another avenue for competition (our company A has health insurance plan X, it's far better than company B's plan!). This avenue of competition is completely irrelevant to the business itself, which I imagine is frustrating to entrepreneurs who got into the business aspect because they wanted to market a particular product or service, not fret about a healthcare policy for their employees. On single payer you will pay more taxes (6.2% payroll tax), but you are no longer burdened with providing healthcare and competing with other businesses with regards to healthcare packages and premiums. This is good for entrepreneurs.

(2) Higher minimum wage. The entire premise of raising the minimum wage benefits small businesses in the same way it benefits the economy: the more disposable income a person has, the more likely they are to spend it, which means businesses make more profit, and the economy grows. People making the current minimum wage can't even afford rent; there is a huge influx of consumers with disposable income that will be unleashed when the minimum wage goes up. Will this drive up the cost of goods? Yes. But the rise won't be as high as the rise of the minimum wage. Doubling the minimum wage isn't going to double the cost of goods. Also, and this is more an aside, but Bernie's plan for a minimum wage won't reach $15/hr until 2020, it scales incrementally.

(3) A ton of good information here: http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sander...repreneurship/


EDIT: I think I actually may have figured out where the person may have been getting the 60% number. If you take the 6.2% payroll tax on businesses which replaces their need to private healthcare, and you take the 2.2% income tax on individuals for private health care, and you take the 52% tax bracket on dollars made over 10 million, you do get 60%. So if his/her small business makes over 10 million dollars, then yes they would pay a 60% tax (on dollars made over 10 million). But they would have free healthcare, and they would not need to offer healthcare to their employees (likely negating or all but negating the combined 8.4% (6.2 + 2.2) component of the 60% number).

Looks like there's a 27% chance she faces charges, but this market is for the end of the year. Bernie needs her to get charged before he runs out of delegates to collect. That's why I guess around 5% of his chances are charges, 5% for other things.

https://www.predictit.org/Contract/1...n-in-2016#data

I suspect that most people don't know what that means.

Undoubtedly though, self-employed small businesses will be hit the hardest under Bernie's plans.

However, consider that his current 2016 is very abbreviated, and likely doesn't address small nuances like the one he mentioned in his full 2013 bill.

His 2013 plan was very detailed (nearly 200 pages): http://www.sanders.senate.gov/downlo...13?inline=file. That plan went into great detail about refundable tax credits built into it for small businesses to reimburse the added costs. It also limited the self-employment payroll tax to the 6.2% contribution and didn't add the 2.2% on top of it. See the "Small Employer Credits" section. Thus demonstrating his willingness to protect small businesses in the past.

And yet, somehow, its not. But i guess youd know better than the FBI/DOJ, yea?

That's me, and yes, other than people paying a lot in the +$10M bracket.

I'm not a big fan of raising payroll taxes. Imo the money goes towards social welfare and should be borne by society as a whole, not as a tax on jobs in particular. I'd rather see it as higher corporate or individual tax rates. Tax what is profitable. Don't make things less or unprofitable.

$15/hr is happening in California anyway.

What is a realistic estimate for probability of charges being filed? Is it approaching 0%? Her being charged after winning the nomination is the only realistic path I see for Trump President.

If it's really 1 in 10, that's huge.

Oscar

This is a highly misleading graph, since it leaves out the massive changes Bernie proposes on payroll taxes. More accurate image from Vox:

It's not yet anyway. There are 147 FBI agents working on the case it's not impossible that she will be indicted. The LA Times piece did a good job laying out why it is unlikely.

oh lordy this graph is wrong as ****. This is the amount of taxation if we don't pay for any of Bernie's massive spending programs.

Nice, the weekly post of that Vox chart doesn't take into effect the shift of healthcare costs from consumer/employer into a tax.

Is there any estimate of what we'll actually get for those higher taxes?

dunno if the graph is wrong or not, but it also ignores the little thing that i have yet to hear from a bernie supporter, that the "free college" isn't completely funded by the wall street tax, but that 33% of it is expected to be covered by the states (with plans to move it to a more 50-50 split in time).

now, if the following is true (quoted from bernie's site):

where does the other $225B go? why are the states being burdened with unfunded mandates, at a time where many of them don't have a pot to piss in? generate $300B, use $75B? if that $300B isn't all being generated in one year, what's the timeframe for it? how is this tax going to work, and how do you define "wall street speculator"? how do you force the states to go along with it (always keeping in mind that constitution thingie).

also, "free tuition" does not equal "free college". with the exception of "low income students" (which has yet to be defined), students will still be responsible for room & board. which (surprise) can't be paid for by "regular scholarships", unless you also go back and change the reagan era law on this. fwiw, average r&b at a public school is slightly over $10k per year.

no commentary on tad devine's latest superdelegate strategy from the guardians of the purity gate?

Generally when people speak about the tax rate, they mean the amount of taxes owed divided by the income that generates the taxes. If you want to create an alternative measure that's equal to taxes owed minus benefits of government spending, I think that would be a lovely idea. But don't call it the tax rate, and don't compare it to tax rates calculated under the standard definition.

nope. none that i've seen. many platitudes, very little detail.

that additional payroll tax is a KILLER for individually owned businesses/freelancers. as well as mom&pop businesses.

I don't know what you're talking about and don't really care to debate what stuff should and shouldn't be called. But if I spent 5000 dollars on premiums and deductibles this year and spend 0 on them next year and my taxes go up 5000 dollars, guess what? I don't give a ****. Your chart sucks.

What if your taxes go up by $25,000 to account for $5,000 of benefit? Does that deserve to show up on a chart? What about the additional SS tax that produces no benefits but isn't reflected on the previous chart? Disregard that as well for reasons?

On Monday during a campaign stop in Spokane, Wash., Bill Clinton said the following about his wife during an extended riff: “If you believe we can rise together, if you believe we’ve finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that, where we were practicing trickle-down economics, then you should vote for her.”

http://www.theroot.com/articles/poli...ul_legacy.html

Bill hitting at obama

we are now looking at our budgets on the dem side the way they do on the gop side. only ever look at the rosy outcomes, ignore the negative.

just as a fwiw, i remember "harry & louise". the youths amoungst us might do well to google it. if nothing else, maybe it'll open their eyes a bit about hrc, if they don't get the main point of the message.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...alculator-2016

[Citation is needed]

dude your ****ing citation is an unsourced imgur image. GTFO cite this.