The Democratic Presidential Nomination 2020

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Until they see the tax bill. Because whatever else is changing about Americans, I don't see their ferocious resistance to taxation going away any time soon. And you simply can't get the level of public spending Sanders is calling for without substantial tax increases right across the board.

Countries like Denmark and Sweden don't have robust public services because they tax the wealthy and corporations at high rates. They can afford robust public services because they impose high income and sales taxes on everybody. To a level I simply can't imagine Americans tolerating.

Through the 50's 60's and 70's when America was "great" the top income tax rate never dipped below 70%, getting as high as 92% in the early 50's...



This idea that they've always been a low tax nation is a misnomer. It was incredibly low before they started entering war after war, . So maybe war-mongering and writing blank cheques to the military industrial complex is the issue here? Perhaps the trillion dollars spent on the F-35 could have helped pay for their healthcare? Seems people who are anti-tax should also be anti-war, but that's a pretty rare case.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Coach

Through the 50's 60's and 70's when America was "great" the top income tax rate never dipped below 70%, getting as high as 92% in the early 50's...



This idea that they've always been a low tax nation is a misnomer. It was incredibly low before they started entering war after war, . So maybe war-mongering and writing blank cheques to the military industrial complex is the issue here? Perhaps the trillion dollars spent on the F-35 could have helped pay for their healthcare? Seems people who are anti-tax should also be anti-war, but that's a pretty rare case.

That was 50 years ago and the economy is completely different than it was

[peter12]

Also can you imagine being in the top bracket and paying 91% of your income in tax? My god, talk about a disincentive.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by peter12

Also can you imagine being in the top bracket and paying 91% of your income in tax? My god, talk about a disincentive.

It’s not 91% on your income, it’s 91% on the amount of income that falls within that bracket. So theoretically if your income was 10 million and the top marginal rate was 91% for income over 9.9 million you’d pay 91% on 100k if I’m remembering how taxes work. Taxes are fun.

Edit: peter’s response is a good indicator though why talking to voters about taxes is a bad idea. If someone like peter who fancies himself as intelligent doesn’t understand it how can you expect some American public school educated bumpkin to grasp anything? Hell I’ve paid American taxes my entire working life and I’m still spotty on bits and pieces.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

That was 50 years ago and the economy is completely different than it was

You're right, the economy is also completely different than it was 30 years ago, but there hasn't been much change since then.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

It’s not 91% on your income, it’s 91% on the amount of income that falls within that bracket. So theoretically if your income was 10 million and the top marginal rate was 91% for income over 9.9 million you’d pay 91% on 100k if I’m remembering how taxes work. Taxes are fun.

Edit: peter’s response is a good indicator though why talking to voters about taxes is a bad idea. If someone like peter who fancies himself as intelligent doesn’t understand it how can you expect some American public school educated bumpkin you grasp anything? Hell I’ve paid American taxes my entire working life and I’m still spotty on bits and pieces.

I never fancied myself as intelligent. What I was getting at is what is the incentive for moving into a higher bracket. Obviously millionaires weren't reduced to paupers, but they were disincentivized from making more money - ie. taking risks with their fortune which is actually good for the economy and workers, generally.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by peter12

I never fancied myself as intelligent. What I was getting at is what is the incentive for moving into a higher bracket. Obviously millionaires weren't reduced to paupers, but they were disincentivized from making more money - ie. taking risks with their fortune which is actually good for the economy and workers, generally.

It's a good thing they aren't disincentivized to pay taxes now, or else there would be so much money squirreled away in off-shore accounts we would find ourselves in a tax crisis!

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Coach

Through the 50's 60's and 70's when America was "great" the top income tax rate never dipped below 70%, getting as high as 92% in the early 50's...

Yep. But that was then and this is now.

I wish it were otherwise, but I see no reason to believe Americans today will tolerate anything close to the levels of taxation required to carry out Bernie's program. Only 25 per cent of Americans say they would support higher taxes in exchange for more government services.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/268295/...socialism.aspx

And the notion that much revenue can be generated by going after the 1 per cent is fantastical.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Coach

Through the 50's 60's and 70's when America was "great" the top income tax rate never dipped below 70%, getting as high as 92% in the early 50's...



This idea that they've always been a low tax nation is a misnomer. It was incredibly low before they started entering war after war, . So maybe war-mongering and writing blank cheques to the military industrial complex is the issue here? Perhaps the trillion dollars spent on the F-35 could have helped pay for their healthcare? Seems people who are anti-tax should also be anti-war, but that's a pretty rare case.

Despite the what the top marginal tax rates were in the past, top income earners weren't paying much more back then than they are now.

There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-t...950s-not-high/

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by peter12

I never fancied myself as intelligent. What I was getting at is what is the incentive for moving into a higher bracket. Obviously millionaires weren't reduced to paupers, but they were disincentivized from making more money - ie. taking risks with their fortune which is actually good for the economy and workers, generally.

The incentive for moving into a higher bracket is that you make more money.
Sure you make less on the 2nd $100k than you do on the first, but you still make more.

[GirlySports]

Taxing income doesnt make a dent. Taxing capital gains is where it's at. That's where the money is made. That's where the rich become wealthy.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by peter12

I never fancied myself as intelligent. What I was getting at is what is the incentive for moving into a higher bracket. Obviously millionaires weren't reduced to paupers, but they were disincentivized from making more money - ie. taking risks with their fortune which is actually good for the economy and workers, generally.

Those rates specifically reference income, investments where one takes risks with their fortunes normally fall under different tax regimes.

At a certain income level, earning more starts to become more about status than the actual dollars you earn.

At the top end of the market if all individuals are being taxed in a similar fashion the the luxury goods market will adjust itself to those levels of income, a $5000 suit doesnt cost $4500 more to make than a $500 suit, it is just where the luxury goods market is able to exist an existing net income levels.

Currently the best argument that could be made against this model is international competition for where a person or companies choose to let their taxes land. Globalization and Heavaning have put governments in a slightly competitive situation against each other, vying these individuals to claim their assets and income in their jurisdiction. I think if, when and how this gets solved will go down as the key issue in 21st century economic philosophy.


One thing extremely high personal income tax rates at extremely high marginal income levels can do is encourage reinvestment in the corporation, or raising salaries of mid to upper management. Because the money can do allot more in those positions as the increase become less valuable to C level executives and board members. As stated above the problem becomes competition for these tax bases, it just isnt the reality we live in right now in our current snail race to the bottom.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by peter12

Obviously millionaires weren't reduced to paupers, but they were disincentivized from making more money - ie. taking risks with their fortune which is actually good for the economy and workers, generally.

I would disagree. The millionaires up in those top brackets would spend their way out of their tax problem, which is good for the economy/industry as they'd have to incur business expenses, ultimately buying products and services from within that industry.

Using the absurd 91% bracket then, imagine a business whose profit is $500k into that bracket. They'll only be left $45k after taxes on that $500k, so rather than go that route, they'd likely instead choose to spend $500k on capital/infrastructure/goods/services, and essentially get what is worth $500k for $45k (all the government would have left them with anyway, had they sat on their hands).

I'm obviously over-simplifying here, and Locke would know far more on the particulars. Ultimately, the point I'm trying to make is that I believe when profits are subject to high taxes, it will typically increase spending by that business in order to avoid taxes.

[GirlySports]

What a mess. Sounds like people didn't follow the rules this year causing all sorts of problems.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/u...s-results.html

The results released by the Iowa Democratic Party on Wednesday were riddled with inconsistencies and other flaws. According to a New York Times analysis, more than 100 precincts reported results that were internally inconsistent, that were missing data or that were not possible under the complex rules of the Iowa caucuses.

In some cases, vote tallies do not add up. In others, precincts are shown allotting the wrong number of delegates to certain candidates. And in at least a few cases, the Iowa Democratic Party’s reported results do not match those reported by the precincts.

Viable candidates can’t lose support on realignment, but there were more than 10 cases where a viable candidate lost vote share in the final alignment, even though that is precluded by the caucus rules.

No new voters are permitted to join the caucus after the first alignment. But in at least 70 precincts, more than 4 percent of the total, there are more tabulated total votes on final alignment than on first alignment.

[bob-loblaw]

I'd love to see Bernie take the nomination. He's the one with so much passion for everything. Plus, he'd tear Trump apart from limb to limb in the debates.

[dobbles]

I'm a lifelong democrat. And a pretty far left person in my values. But I hate Bernie. Why? Because he is. not. a. democrat. I spent years going door to door registering voters, phone banking to drum up support for candidates, running online campaigns, driving voters to polls, etc. And I did that because it was in support of a political party I believed in. Meanwhile what has Bernie done for the democratic party? For democratic candidates? Even for his recent senate election he was officially independent. And yet he wonders why the rules that govern the democratic primary are the way they are? If he doesn't like it, maybe he should join the god d$&%*d party and work to change them1?!?!?!?!?!??!

All that aside, the reason I think that he is a terrible candidate is that none of his ideas will get anywhere. Even if he wins, the senate likely isn't going to be in democratic hands. And just look at Obamacare. It ended up a watered down, republican influenced bill, and yet republicans have still spent the last 10 years dismantling it. If you want something to last, you have to build consensus from everyone. His policies alienate and infuriate a large portion of the country. That is not the way for lasting change.

As I have aged, I have become much more pragmatic in my thinking. While I would love to see policies like Bernies implemented and at least tried, we are not there yet. Sure we probably need to do more than the incremental change we get, but the risk is we just keep devolving into this team sports stuff where the party in power just spends their time undoing whatever the other party previously did.

[nik-]

Personally, I think Sanders not being a member of the Democratic party and being able to answer the question "what have you done for the party" with "not much" is a huge selling point. Party loyalty isn't a virtue. Him having to run under the Democrat banner is an indictment of the political status quo, not of him.

There are many things that can be legitimate concerns with Sanders. That sure isn't one of them.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by nik-

Personally, I think Sanders not being a member of the Democratic party and being able to answer the question "what have you done for the party" with "not much" is a huge selling point. Party loyalty isn't a virtue. Him having to run under the Democrat banner is an indictment of the political status quo, not of him.

There are many things that can be legitimate concerns with Sanders. That sure isn't one of them.

To a democrat in the USA? I'm not so sure. Easy for someone up here to think that though.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by dobbles

I'm a lifelong democrat. And a pretty far left person in my values. But I hate Bernie. Why? Because he is. not. a. democrat. I spent years going door to door registering voters, phone banking to drum up support for candidates, running online campaigns, driving voters to polls, etc. And I did that because it was in support of a political party I believed in. Meanwhile what has Bernie done for the democratic party? For democratic candidates? Even for his recent senate election he was officially independent. And yet he wonders why the rules that govern the democratic primary are the way they are? If he doesn't like it, maybe he should join the god d$&%*d party and work to change them1?!?!?!?!?!??!

All that aside, the reason I think that he is a terrible candidate is that none of his ideas will get anywhere. Even if he wins, the senate likely isn't going to be in democratic hands. And just look at Obamacare. It ended up a watered down, republican influenced bill, and yet republicans have still spent the last 10 years dismantling it. If you want something to last, you have to build consensus from everyone. His policies alienate and infuriate a large portion of the country. That is not the way for lasting change.

As I have aged, I have become much more pragmatic in my thinking. While I would love to see policies like Bernies implemented and at least tried, we are not there yet. Sure we probably need to do more than the incremental change we get, but the risk is we just keep devolving into this team sports stuff where the party in power just spends their time undoing whatever the other party previously did.

I agree with what you are saying about pragmatism.

Bernie is an ideologue, and seems to be committed to staying that way. That brings up a lot of questions of what his general election campaign looks like and also his presidency.

How does he run on Medicare for all when a vast majority of Americans feel strongly about keeping their employer based health care? There is a giant red flag on why this policy will fall apart in a general election and it is this:

KFF polling also shows many people falsely assume they would be able to keep their current health insurance under a single-payer plan, suggesting another potential area for decreased support especially since most supporters (67 percent) of such a proposal think they would be able to keep their current health insurance coverage (Figure 11).

https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public...care-coverage/

How does he deal with those numbers and relentless ads saying Bernie is taking away your employer based coverage?

And if he does win, is he still Medicare for all, or nothing? There's not a chance that gets approved in his term, so does that mean he does nothing to improve health care?

Does his environmental stance of anti nuclear energy, anti natural gas, etc and other uncompromising positions lead to actually improving environmental issues or make things worse?

He has all these simple ideologue solutions to complex problems that he has to implement with backing of a likely split houses. Even if the Democrats control both houses, they probably aren't likely to back most of his ideas.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by nik-

Personally, I think Sanders not being a member of the Democratic party and being able to answer the question "what have you done for the party" with "not much" is a huge selling point. Party loyalty isn't a virtue. Him having to run under the Democrat banner is an indictment of the political status quo, not of him.

Bingo.

The vast majority of primary voters, to say nothing of general election voters, could not give less of a crap about your years of partisan loyalty. The parties are broadly looked at as incompetent insular country clubs. Obviously this sort of attitude matters to some extent in the primaries because it's the party itself that is running the thing, and a lot of those people are going to think much like John Kerry about Bernie. But there's a reason he's very likely going to end up with the win in 3 of the first 4 primaries (including Iowa, if they ever figure out the remaining precincts).