Poll: Who would be president if Mustachians were the only voters?

[coolistdude]

Rand Paul suspended his campaign on February 3rd.

Looks like my tradition of scribbling Ron or Rand's name will continue this election.

Dude,  i love you.

<3 thanks man. Appreciate the love.

[Jack]

Then vote for Sanders. The "free tuition" thing simply isn't going to happen -- it'll never get through Congress. However, if reasonable student loan rates is what you actually want to accomplish, then using "free tuition" as a starting position in the negotiation is a good tactic.

As a bonus, we'd end up with someone who actually gives a shit about the Fourth Amendment, and Sanders is the only candidate with "traction" who meets that criteria.

Im leaning more toward Kasich, but yeah that is true, the extreme starting point is a good negotiation tactic.

Yes on negotiation tactic if you are in power but free stuff scares people - he may never get the chance to negotiate

A valid point, but it attracts (other) people too. Which group is larger is an open question.

[Kris]

Do all those folks who support Sanders realize that his proposed tax policies would add years to an aspiring early retiree's working career?
Taxing all dividends and capital gains as regular income would be pretty disastrous to someone planning to live on their 'stash tax free.

Shhhh! They don't want to accept that or acknowledge that!

Maybe voting for the leader of our country is more important that just the financial implications to the individual.  Bernie's tax plan will cost me ~3% more per year.  I would gladly pay many times that for the chance to have someone in office that will try to stop the human rights abuses and military murders done in my country's name with my tax dollars.
How many tax dollars are a foreign war that kills 10's of thousands of innocents worth to you?  If a candidate would lower your taxes by 3%, but also promise to kill another hundred people at a wedding party with a drone, would you do it?
If there's one thing that mustachian~ism seems to be about is: it's not all about the money, it's about living right.

Count me in this group, as well.

[AZDude]

Other - Gary Johnson or another decent third party candidate.

[JLee]

Do all those folks who support Sanders realize that his proposed tax policies would add years to an aspiring early retiree's working career?
Taxing all dividends and capital gains as regular income would be pretty disastrous to someone planning to live on their 'stash tax free.

Shhhh! They don't want to accept that or acknowledge that!

Maybe voting for the leader of our country is more important that just the financial implications to the individual.  Bernie's tax plan will cost me ~3% more per year.  I would gladly pay many times that for the chance to have someone in office that will try to stop the human rights abuses and military murders done in my country's name with my tax dollars.
How many tax dollars are a foreign war that kills 10's of thousands of innocents worth to you?  If a candidate would lower your taxes by 3%, but also promise to kill another hundred people at a wedding party with a drone, would you do it?
If there's one thing that mustachian~ism seems to be about is: it's not all about the money, it's about living right.

I see you are one of those types, Military is only a death machine and does no good. Also, how selfish is that about saying it will only raise your taxes by 3 percent so who cares! How about the millions that will be paying way more in taxes, yup who cares about those millions that will have even more taken from their paychecks that are already living paycheck to paycheck. Also, just because you follow one way in life, does not mean you should force your way onto others. Yeah I love mustachianism big time, but by no means should I force that belief on others. That is why I tend to lean the way of less taxes and more individual freedom.

I make roughly $100k ($97k + ~$10k in rental income) and my tax impact from the Bernie calculator shows as less than $80 a month reduction in net income (this is just using the standard deduction, and I own a house).  If I made $150k a year (again just using the standard deduction) we're looking at $172 a month in additional tax.  That's trivial - and the difference would be even less if I used my health insurance (if I paid my full $1300 deductible, I would save $323/year compared to what I currently pay).

Median household income is $51,939.  A couple filing jointly with no kids, earning the median household income, paying $1200/year for health insurance, will be paying $1,746/year less than they do currently.

If someone is living paycheck to paycheck while earning $100k, $80/mo isn't going to solve their problem.  If they're making enough that the tax difference is actually an amount of money worth talking about, they have absolutely no excuse for being paycheck to paycheck to begin with.

[Norioch]

I just checked that Bernie Sanders calculator. I'm at a point in my life where I make so much money, more money than I ever expected to make and more than I know what to do with. I don't even really bother with Mustachian frugality anymore, I just buy whatever I want as soon as I want it and don't worry about the cost and I'm still saving like 60% of my income.

Under Bernie's plan (which is completely irrelevant since it will never pass Congress) I would pay about $3600 more in taxes annually.

Oh noes!

Yeah, I'm not at all worried about higher taxes. I would welcome them.

[phwadsworth]

so far it seems the Bernie supporters here are generally in support because
A) going to get a tax cut
or
B) going to get a tax raise that doesn't matter because we're so rich we don't mind paying more for a more civil and stable society.

basically the opposite of what the opponents say Bernie supporters about: getting "free shit" and raising taxes on people "living pay check to pay check".

[Kris]

so far it seems the Bernie supporters here are generally in support because
A) going to get a tax cut
or
B) going to get a tax raise that doesn't matter because we're so rich we don't mind paying more for a more civil and stable society.

basically the opposite of what the opponents say Bernie supporters about: getting "free shit" and raising taxes on people "living pay check to pay check".

Pretty much.

And by the way, it always strikes me as interesting the stereotype perpetuated by conservatives that Democrats or liberals are takers who want nothng but free shit, and conservatives are fiscally resoinsible and don't take handouts.  I recognize that this is anecdotal, but prett much all of the liberals I know are solidly middle class or upper middle class, and want their tax dollars to go to the common good so that our society is better as a whole.  On the other hand, I know a crapload of conservatives who can barely make ends meet and are receiving government handouts with one hand while flipping off the government with the other.  It's mind-boggling.

[Killerbrandt]

so far it seems the Bernie supporters here are generally in support because
A) going to get a tax cut
or
B) going to get a tax raise that doesn't matter because we're so rich we don't mind paying more for a more civil and stable society.

basically the opposite of what the opponents say Bernie supporters about: getting "free shit" and raising taxes on people "living pay check to pay check".

Pretty much.

And by the way, it always strikes me as interesting the stereotype perpetuated by conservatives that Democrats or liberals are takers who want nothng but free shit, and conservatives are fiscally resoinsible and don't take handouts.  I recognize that this is anecdotal, but prett much all of the liberals I know are solidly middle class or upper middle class, and want their tax dollars to go to the common good so that our society is better as a whole.  On the other hand, I know a crapload of conservatives who can barely make ends meet and are receiving government handouts with one hand while flipping off the government with the other.  It's mind-boggling.

The only real issue I have with liberal ideas is that most think the government is efficient and can handle money well. We can literally name off like 99 percent of the countries in the world to prove that most SUCK with our money. Just look at the deficit and debt we have as a nation already. If the Government was better at handling it all, then yeah! I would be for a lot more policies.

[GuitarStv]

I don't think that most people on the left think that the government is particularly efficient and can handle well . . . most think that the government is about as good as (maybe even slightly worse than) private industry.  The benefit of having the government do things is accountability, and a motivation to work in the best interests of the people rather than simply try to make a quick buck.  The government can work towards long term goals where as industry is driven by short quarterly reporting . . . this makes it less efficient at tackling big problems that aren't easily quantified into a monetary cost.

[Killerbrandt]

I don't think that most people on the left think that the government is particularly efficient and can handle well . . . most think that the government is about as good as (maybe even slightly worse than) private industry.  The benefit of having the government do things is accountability, and a motivation to work in the best interests of the people rather than simply try to make a quick buck.  The government can work towards long term goals where as industry is driven by short quarterly reporting . . . this makes it less efficient at tackling big problems that aren't easily quantified into a monetary cost.

I can agree with most of this comment, other than government is only slightly worse than private. I do not believe that at all! Private industry has a goal to be more cost effective to make the most money and to make the money go the furthest. The government is very lax on that side of it since there is nothing driving that efficiency. If the Government was like most private companies it would already be bankrupt and gone. However, I do agree on the long term goals are much easier for the government to focus on and stick to, that I can see within the government, the military is a good example of that, but the costs associated are horrible and usually not very efficient. Also with accountability? That is just as mixed as private, just like we are having the Hillary server issues (as an example).

[arebelspy]

Yup.  The government is inefficient.

I'd rather put up with some waste with my money, and have it help lots regardless, than have no waste, but have no one helped.

[Killerbrandt]

Yup.  The government is inefficient.

I'd rather put up with some waste with my money, and have it help lots regardless, than have no waste, but have no one helped.

So you are claiming all the charities out there don't help millions of people? the Salvation army alone in my city helps thousands each day that are homeless or struggling. They open up early and feed anyone that needs it, then goes out looking for the ones they know have a harder time traveling to the location. I have yet to see a government agency do that on a constant level and with such accuracy and efficiency. Also, majority of their funds, food, and clothing are donated by the people of our city. They function with only a 7 percent overhead.

[arebelspy]

Yup.  The government is inefficient.

I'd rather put up with some waste with my money, and have it help lots regardless, than have no waste, but have no one helped.

So you are claiming all the charities out there don't help millions of people?

I'm not claiming that at all. 

Can you stop making up things, creating strawmen arguments, and putting words in people's mouths?


I didn't even mention or bring up charities, so you're just pulling that out of who knows where, for who knows what reason.  Stop it.

But since you did bring it up, yes the government can work on a scale, with resources and abilities, that a charity cannot.

Charities do massive amounts of good.

But no, charities can't provide a social safety net the way the government can.  Healthcare for the poor.  Minimum income/social security.  Many infrastructure projects, or other public works or goods.

I'm okay with some waste for the massive societal benefits the government can provide, even if they aren't as efficient as a private business, or even some charities, for the good they can do for all citizens.

[JordanOfGilead]

the Salvation army alone in my city helps thousands each day that are homeless or struggling. They open up early and feed anyone that needs it, then goes out looking for the ones they know have a harder time traveling to the location.

You know, unless they're gay.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/salvationarmy.asp
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/16/anti-gay-companies_n_4110344.html
http://www.prosebeforehos.com/cultural-correspondent/12/07/why-the-salvation-army-doesnt-deserve-your-money/
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/salvation_army.htm

Tell me again how your private organizations are better at "helping" people? Because that seems pretty shitty to me ...

[phwadsworth]

The only real issue I have with liberal ideas is that most think the government is efficient and can handle money well.

I don't know a single liberal who thinks this, literally not one.  I don't know where you're getting your "most" quantity from, perhaps it's from non-liberals looking to discredit liberals?

A point on fiscal efficiency and government:  the implication here is that money is the best way to measure a government's productivity.  I disagree.  For me, the very reason that government exists is because there are things that need to get done for the good of the community (aka country) that SHOULD NOT be measured by fiscal efficiency.  If we measured every government action by how efficiently its money was used many, many wonderful things would never get done.  Examples:

The easiest example is the Rural Electrification Act.  When the country was first being wired for electricity by private enterprises they would only provide power to denser more-urban areas.  That just makes financial sense, why lose money by stringing tons more wire to poor people who will use very little? The reason is equity (like the income equity we're fighting about now).  Some people thankfully saw that unless "money was lost" on the project large areas of the nation would be left behind and we would become a technologically and financially divided union.  Similar programs are now being enacted to distribute high speed internet to similarly rural and/or impoverished areas.  It is not an "efficient" use of money, but it is necessary for the maintenance of our community.

The Interstate Highway System  huge, HUGE!  "waste" of tax money every year, but the business-way of doing it would be a incomplete series of toll-highways that would curry favor to certain cities and not others. 

Funding for any non-white public school. Seriously.  The battle for equal funding of school and integration has been a horrible long fought battle.  Can you imagine if school funding from the mid-1800s through the mid-1900s were done on a purely "fiscally prudent" manner?

NASA  One of the casualties of our current focus on "less wastefull spending" has been NASA.  Yes, it started because of the Cold War, but the science, beauty, perspective, education, and even businesses(!!!) that have come out of NASA are amazing.  If we were to try to put a value on the images from Hubble, for example, versus the money we spent on it, no Libertarian would ever support it.  But, this is crucial science we need for better understanding our planet, our species, and our place in the Universe.

The National Weather Service we all take for granted now, was once a huge boondoggle of wasteful government spending.  Back in the late 1800's when all storms we're considered "acts of god" and it was heresy to try to understand them with science, a few bold civil war generals fought to keep funding for this branch of the US Signal Corp.  I'm actually reading a book right now about how it all started and multiple politicians tried to kill the bureau in its infancy because it was "wasteful".  I can't imagine what our current state of science understanding would be if this service had not been funded, however inefficiently.

Am I saying that these programs were all done with no unnecessary waste?  Heck no!  Most government programs leak money like sieves (I worked at DARPA, damn!  I saw huge amounts of money spent on stupid shit!).  But, I also don't think that this waste is a for-sure reason to kill the program, and it is definitely not a reason to turn any of these programs over to private industry, because their results shouldn't be measured in dollars.  That is why I support government programs and tax-spending, not because I think "government is efficient and can handle money well".  I'm not stupid or blind, I just value many things much higher than money and I think we too often use money as a catch all yardstick when we should measure with other criteria.

[golden1]

If charities were doing a good enough job we wouldn't need the government to step in and help.  Obviously charities can't do it all or we wouldn't have these problems.  And many charities are more corrupt than the government.

[phwadsworth]

creating strawmen arguments

he obviously still doesn't know what this means ;)

[Killerbrandt]

Yup.  The government is inefficient.

I'd rather put up with some waste with my money, and have it help lots regardless, than have no waste, but have no one helped.

So you are claiming all the charities out there don't help millions of people?

I'm not claiming that at all. 

Can you stop making up things, creating strawmen arguments, and putting words in people's mouths?


I didn't even mention or bring up charities, so you're just pulling that out of who knows where, for who knows what reason.  Stop it.

But since you did bring it up, yes the government can work on a scale, with resources and abilities, that a charity cannot.

Charities do massive amounts of good.

But no, charities can't provide a social safety net the way the government can.  Healthcare for the poor.  Minimum income/social security.  Many infrastructure projects, or other public works or goods.

I'm okay with some waste for the massive societal benefits the government can provide, even if they aren't as efficient as a private business, or even some charities, for the good they can do for all citizens.

Not putting words in your mouth, you want government to control more and think the benefits are better than the size of waste it creates. I do not know you personally, but have you worked in government agencies? Prepared their budgets? handled contracts within? I think you would throw up if you saw the amount of waste in these agencies. Do you not read about all the failed contracts? the cost run ups? lazy employees? and the stupid policy "USE IT OR LOSE IT", that policy alone wastes millions to billions each year in just my agency alone. "oh hey we have 10 million left over!, but we need to spend it because next year they will cut our budget", then "YAY!! NEW COUCHES!! NEW laptops we didn't need!!"

Overall, I am glad you have so much trust in the government, but the truth is that it is not efficient and never will be, just look at our current debt and deficit. The government is great with lots of things, but when talking about complete take over of industries, that is a whole didn't ball field, especially with our US government not being use to it.

[brett2k07]

I like to focus more on Bernie's Wall Street tax he keep touting. The average voter seems to think that only effects wealthy individuals, but they are sadly misinformed.

His Wall Street tax proposal is a 0.5% tax on all trades made. That means that the middle class guy making $40,000 or $50,000 a year and is diligently putting money away into his 401k is going to get reamed every time his mutual fund sells and buys. It touches every single American who is trying to save money for retirement by investing in their 401k plans at work. It also pulls earnings down on pension funds creating a larger annual contribution requirement. Considering we're already facing a $1 trillion dollar deficit in pension funds nationwide, we're staring down the barrel of a loaded gun on that front.

There's also historical data to show that financial transaction taxes are a bad idea. Sweden, one country socialists love to tout, actually implemented this exact type of tax back in 1984 with disastrous results. Bond trade volume declined by 85% during the first week the tax was implemented. Futures volume declined by 98% and the options market went away all together. Equities trading declined as well, though much less dramatically. Two years later, because the revenue was so dismal, they doubled the rate. By the end of 1986, 30% of all Swedish trading had moved offshore. By 1990 that number grew to 50%. In an effort to bring investors back, they abolished the tax completely at the end of 1991. The trading volume returned and then grew during the 1990s as a result.

Other than the virtual crash of the Swedish stock market, it also means the projected revenue figures from those taxes were completely wrong. They projected revenue totaling 1,500 million kronor per year, but the average revenue was 50 million kronor with no single year exceeding 80 million kronor. They averaged 3% of projected revenue. That's abysmal by any standard. It also means that uses for that money would have to be greatly pared down. Under Sanders' plan, that would mean less colleges would get money to pay for operating costs, or more colleges would get less money. Either way, schools would have to cut back on staff and class offerings. Inevitably, some would have to close.

That's not exactly the socialist utopia Sanders is promoting. But that's because he doesn't understand free markets. Investors aren't stupid, especially wealthy ones. They aren't just going to take a hit to their investment returns lying down. Some of you have indicated you'd be willing to pay more for the benefit of society, but not everybody is as socially righteous as you. If the wealthy move most of their trading offshore it will leave the middle class investors I mentioned in the first paragraph holding the bag and footing the bill. I don't really think most people would be happy with that.

This guy is literally promoting 32 years old tax policies that had disastrous effects on a foreign market. That's about as asinine as one can get. We need a free market capitalist as President, not a socialist promoting old ideas that have proven to be ineffective.

[Killerbrandt]

I like to focus more on Bernie's Wall Street tax he keep touting. The average voter seems to think that only effects wealthy individuals, but they are sadly misinformed.

His Wall Street tax proposal is a 0.5% tax on all trades made. That means that the middle class guy making $40,000 or $50,000 a year and is diligently putting money away into his 401k is going to get reamed every time his mutual fund sells and buys. It touches every single American who is trying to save money for retirement by investing in their 401k plans at work. It also pulls earnings down on pension funds creating a larger annual contribution requirement. Considering we're already facing a $1 trillion dollar deficit in pension funds nationwide, we're staring down the barrel of a loaded gun on that front.

There's also historical data to show that financial transaction taxes are a bad idea. Sweden, one country socialists love to tout, actually implemented this exact type of tax back in 1984 with disastrous results. Bond trade volume declined by 85% during the first week the tax was implemented. Futures volume declined by 98% and the options market went away all together. Equities trading declined as well, though much less dramatically. Two years later, because the revenue was so dismal, they doubled the rate. By the end of 1986, 30% of all Swedish trading had moved offshore. By 1990 that number grew to 50%. In an effort to bring investors back, they abolished the tax completely at the end of 1991. The trading volume returned and then grew during the 1990s as a result.

Other than the virtual crash of the Swedish stock market, it also means the projected revenue figures from those taxes were completely wrong. They projected revenue totaling 1,500 million kronor per year, but the average revenue was 50 million kronor with no single year exceeding 80 million kronor. They averaged 3% of projected revenue. That's abysmal by any standard. It also means that uses for that money would have to be greatly pared down. Under Sanders' plan, that would mean less colleges would get money to pay for operating costs, or more colleges would get less money. Either way, schools would have to cut back on staff and class offerings. Inevitably, some would have to close.

That's not exactly the socialist utopia Sanders is promoting. But that's because he doesn't understand free markets. Investors aren't stupid, especially wealthy ones. They aren't just going to take a hit to their investment returns lying down. Some of you have indicated you'd be willing to pay more for the benefit of society, but not everybody is as socially righteous as you. If the wealthy move most of their trading offshore it will leave the middle class investors I mentioned in the first paragraph holding the bag and footing the bill. I don't really think most people would be happy with that.

This guy is literally promoting 32 years old tax policies that had disastrous effects on a foreign market. That's about as asinine as one can get. We need a free market capitalist as President, not a socialist promoting old ideas that have proven to be ineffective.

+1+1

[golden1]

Quote from: Killerbrandt on Today at 05:43:42 AM
The only real issue I have with liberal ideas is that most think the government is efficient and can handle money well.
I don't know a single liberal who thinks this, literally not one.  I don't know where you're getting your "most" quantity from, perhaps it's from non-liberals looking to discredit liberals?

A point on fiscal efficiency and government:  the implication here is that money is the best way to measure a government's productivity.  I disagree.  For me, the very reason that government exists is because there are things that need to get done for the good of the community (aka country) that SHOULD NOT be measured by fiscal efficiency.  If we measured every government action by how efficiently its money was used many, many wonderful things would never get done.  Examples:

The easiest example is the Rural Electrification Act.  When the country was first being wired for electricity by private enterprises they would only provide power to denser more-urban areas.  That just makes financial sense, why lose money by stringing tons more wire to poor people who will use very little? The reason is equity (like the income equity we're fighting about now).  Some people thankfully saw that unless "money was lost" on the project large areas of the nation would be left behind and we would become a technologically and financially divided union.  Similar programs are now being enacted to distribute high speed internet to similarly rural and/or impoverished areas.  It is not an "efficient" use of money, but it is necessary for the maintenance of our community.

The Interstate Highway System  huge, HUGE!  "waste" of tax money every year, but the business-way of doing it would be a incomplete series of toll-highways that would curry favor to certain cities and not others. 

Funding for any non-white public school. Seriously.  The battle for equal funding of school and integration has been a horrible long fought battle.  Can you imagine if school funding from the mid-1800s through the mid-1900s were done on a purely "fiscally prudent" manner?

NASA  One of the casualties of our current focus on "less wastefull spending" has been NASA.  Yes, it started because of the Cold War, but the science, beauty, perspective, education, and even businesses(!!!) that have come out of NASA are amazing.  If we were to try to put a value on the images from Hubble, for example, versus the money we spent on it, no Libertarian would ever support it.  But, this is crucial science we need for better understanding our planet, our species, and our place in the Universe.

The National Weather Service we all take for granted now, was once a huge boondoggle of wasteful government spending.  Back in the late 1800's when all storms we're considered "acts of god" and it was heresy to try to understand them with science, a few bold civil war generals fought to keep funding for this branch of the US Signal Corp.  I'm actually reading a book right now about how it all started and multiple politicians tried to kill the bureau in its infancy because it was "wasteful".  I can't imagine what our current state of science understanding would be if this service had not been funded, however inefficiently.

Am I saying that these programs were all done with no unnecessary waste?  Heck no!  Most government programs leak money like sieves (I worked at DARPA, damn!  I saw huge amounts of money spent on stupid shit!).  But, I also don't think that this waste is a for-sure reason to kill the program, and it is definitely not a reason to turn any of these programs over to private industry, because their results shouldn't be measured in dollars.  That is why I support government programs and tax-spending, not because I think "government is efficient and can handle money well".  I'm not stupid or blind, I just value many things much higher than money and I think we too often use money as a catch all yardstick when we should measure with other criteria.

This is fantastic and bears repeating.  Not everything of value looks valuable at the time it is done, or can be quantified in terms of ROI.  One of the biggest things we are missing in society right now is a focus on the long term view, and particularly in private industry with it being a slave to the quarterly report. 

I don't pretend that the government is efficient.  I know better.  But I also know that private industry isn't always efficient either, and not only that, it tends to act sociopathically. 

[Killerbrandt]

Quote from: Killerbrandt on Today at 05:43:42 AM
The only real issue I have with liberal ideas is that most think the government is efficient and can handle money well.
I don't know a single liberal who thinks this, literally not one.  I don't know where you're getting your "most" quantity from, perhaps it's from non-liberals looking to discredit liberals?

A point on fiscal efficiency and government:  the implication here is that money is the best way to measure a government's productivity.  I disagree.  For me, the very reason that government exists is because there are things that need to get done for the good of the community (aka country) that SHOULD NOT be measured by fiscal efficiency.  If we measured every government action by how efficiently its money was used many, many wonderful things would never get done.  Examples:

The easiest example is the Rural Electrification Act.  When the country was first being wired for electricity by private enterprises they would only provide power to denser more-urban areas.  That just makes financial sense, why lose money by stringing tons more wire to poor people who will use very little? The reason is equity (like the income equity we're fighting about now).  Some people thankfully saw that unless "money was lost" on the project large areas of the nation would be left behind and we would become a technologically and financially divided union.  Similar programs are now being enacted to distribute high speed internet to similarly rural and/or impoverished areas.  It is not an "efficient" use of money, but it is necessary for the maintenance of our community.

The Interstate Highway System  huge, HUGE!  "waste" of tax money every year, but the business-way of doing it would be a incomplete series of toll-highways that would curry favor to certain cities and not others. 

Funding for any non-white public school. Seriously.  The battle for equal funding of school and integration has been a horrible long fought battle.  Can you imagine if school funding from the mid-1800s through the mid-1900s were done on a purely "fiscally prudent" manner?

NASA  One of the casualties of our current focus on "less wastefull spending" has been NASA.  Yes, it started because of the Cold War, but the science, beauty, perspective, education, and even businesses(!!!) that have come out of NASA are amazing.  If we were to try to put a value on the images from Hubble, for example, versus the money we spent on it, no Libertarian would ever support it.  But, this is crucial science we need for better understanding our planet, our species, and our place in the Universe.

The National Weather Service we all take for granted now, was once a huge boondoggle of wasteful government spending.  Back in the late 1800's when all storms we're considered "acts of god" and it was heresy to try to understand them with science, a few bold civil war generals fought to keep funding for this branch of the US Signal Corp.  I'm actually reading a book right now about how it all started and multiple politicians tried to kill the bureau in its infancy because it was "wasteful".  I can't imagine what our current state of science understanding would be if this service had not been funded, however inefficiently.

Am I saying that these programs were all done with no unnecessary waste?  Heck no!  Most government programs leak money like sieves (I worked at DARPA, damn!  I saw huge amounts of money spent on stupid shit!).  But, I also don't think that this waste is a for-sure reason to kill the program, and it is definitely not a reason to turn any of these programs over to private industry, because their results shouldn't be measured in dollars.  That is why I support government programs and tax-spending, not because I think "government is efficient and can handle money well".  I'm not stupid or blind, I just value many things much higher than money and I think we too often use money as a catch all yardstick when we should measure with other criteria.

This is fantastic and bears repeating.  Not everything of value looks valuable at the time it is done, or can be quantified in terms of ROI.  One of the biggest things we are missing in society right now is a focus on the long term view, and particularly in private industry with it being a slave to the quarterly report. 

I don't pretend that the government is efficient.  I know better.  But I also know that private industry isn't always efficient either, and not only that, it tends to act sociopathically.

I agree with you Golden1 big time, but that is where the question comes, if both sides are idiots, then who should handle our money? the individual or the government? Even though the individual is an horrible with money, should we take away his rights and freedom of deciding what to do with his own money or do we let the government have it?

[phwadsworth]

I like to focus more on Bernie's Wall Street tax he keep touting. The average voter seems to think that only effects wealthy individuals, but they are sadly misinformed.

Correct.  It's really unfortunate that Wall Street is being used as the "other to blame" just like Trump is blaming immigrants and Muslims.  Both are over simplifications at best, red herrings at worst.

If the wealthy move most of their trading offshore

I find this general argument to be specious.  In this case it may happen, but the general idea that if we raise taxes on the rich they will take their ball and go home is incorrect.  I came from one of the highest taxed states in the Union, Vermont, and in Chittenden county I was surrounded by extremely rich people.  Rich people saw that they got a lot of value for their taxes, and every time the local Republicans screamed about a tax raise and the coming exodus of capital from the county/state, it didn't happen.
Now I live in NYC, a city that puts an extra 4% income tax on top of the 8% state income tax, damn!  All of these hyper wealthy people could easily move to Miami and be rid of those taxes, or even just across the river and cut their bill signifcantly.  But they don't.  Because there's more to the equation than just taxes.  These not-stupid-wealthy-investors are paying BILLIONS annual in extra taxes to stay in NYC.
Time may prove me wrong, but I don't think that any small tax increase will make the current very safe and well understood system pick up and move to another country.
Do I think that the tax could be detrimental to everyday people? Yeah, it will hurt returns....I'm not sure if it will be a net loss though with gains made elsewhere....see my previous comments on not measuring everything with the money yardstick.

[phwadsworth]

private industry.......tends to act sociopathically.

^^^^this^^^ sums up what I was trying to say beautifully.  Sometimes we need cold hard data, and a sociopathic strategy is the best, other times not.
Measuring every program that we as a nation undertake by its financial success is sort of like this:

sometimes money isn't the measure.  It is always a factor!  But sometimes it just shouldn't be the metric.

[Killerbrandt]

I like to focus more on Bernie's Wall Street tax he keep touting. The average voter seems to think that only effects wealthy individuals, but they are sadly misinformed.

Correct.  It's really unfortunate that Wall Street is being used as the "other to blame" just like Trump is blaming immigrants and Muslims.  Both are over simplifications at best, red herrings at worst.

If the wealthy move most of their trading offshore

I find this general argument to be specious.  In this case it may happen, but the general idea that if we raise taxes on the rich they will take their ball and go home is incorrect.  I came from one of the highest taxed states in the Union, Vermont, and in Chittenden county I was surrounded by extremely rich people.  Rich people saw that they got a lot of value for their taxes, and every time the local Republicans screamed about a tax raise and the coming exodus of capital from the county/state, it didn't happen.
Now I live in NYC, a city that puts an extra 4% income tax on top of the 8% state income tax, damn!  All of these hyper wealthy people could easily move to Miami and be rid of those taxes, or even just across the river and cut their bill signifcantly.  But they don't.  Because there's more to the equation than just taxes.  These not-stupid-wealthy-investors are paying BILLIONS annual in extra taxes to stay in NYC.
Time may prove me wrong, but I don't think that any small tax increase will make the current very safe and well understood system pick up and move to another country.
Do I think that the tax could be detrimental to everyday people? Yeah, it will hurt returns....I'm not sure if it will be a net loss though with gains made elsewhere....see my previous comments on not measuring everything with the money yardstick.

France has seen tons of Millionaires leaving their country over the years. History shows that the wealth can leave anytime they want or move wealth from out of the states, if needed. I need to find it, but California is experiencing a huge movement of people leaving the state, along with many businesses.

Here is the France link

[url]http://www.france24.com/en/20150808-france-wealthy-flee-high-taxes-les-echos-figures[url]

[Killerbrandt]

private industry.......tends to act sociopathically.

^^^^this^^^ sums up what I was trying to say beautifully.  Sometimes we need cold hard data, and a sociopathic strategy is the best, other times not.
Measuring every program that we as a nation undertake by its financial success is sort of like this:

sometimes money isn't the measure.  It is always a factor!  But sometimes it just shouldn't be the metric.

Yes, but how can you continue anything without factoring the money? If we go under and default on our debt, then how can we do any of the policies everyone wants?

[brett2k07]

I like to focus more on Bernie's Wall Street tax he keep touting. The average voter seems to think that only effects wealthy individuals, but they are sadly misinformed.

Correct.  It's really unfortunate that Wall Street is being used as the "other to blame" just like Trump is blaming immigrants and Muslims.  Both are over simplifications at best, red herrings at worst.

If the wealthy move most of their trading offshore

I find this general argument to be specious.  In this case it may happen, but the general idea that if we raise taxes on the rich they will take their ball and go home is incorrect.  I came from one of the highest taxed states in the Union, Vermont, and in Chittenden county I was surrounded by extremely rich people.  Rich people saw that they got a lot of value for their taxes, and every time the local Republicans screamed about a tax raise and the coming exodus of capital from the county/state, it didn't happen.
Now I live in NYC, a city that puts an extra 4% income tax on top of the 8% state income tax, damn!  All of these hyper wealthy people could easily move to Miami and be rid of those taxes, or even just across the river and cut their bill signifcantly.  But they don't.  Because there's more to the equation than just taxes.  These not-stupid-wealthy-investors are paying BILLIONS annual in extra taxes to stay in NYC.
Time may prove me wrong, but I don't think that any small tax increase will make the current very safe and well understood system pick up and move to another country.
Do I think that the tax could be detrimental to everyday people? Yeah, it will hurt returns....I'm not sure if it will be a net loss though with gains made elsewhere....see my previous comments on not measuring everything with the money yardstick.

New Yorkers are leaving. They have been for quite some time. They've actually seen the highest overall net decrease in domestic migration of all 50 states with a total of 653,071 people leaving according to an Empire Center report that was just released in December.

[phwadsworth]

France has seen tons of Millionaires leaving their country over the years. History shows that the wealth can leave anytime they want or move wealth from out of the states, if needed. I need to find it, but California is experiencing a huge movement of people leaving the state, along with many businesses.

Sure, and is the only reason taxes?  Or is it because as an ecosystem it is not advantageous to stay there?  That's my point.  Saying "if you raise taxes they'll leave" is provably false.  Saying "if you make business and life so bad that they can better value elsewhere"  is a better way to put it.  For example, despite our high taxes and lots of red tape, the US is still a preferred place to do business and invest.  Why?  Because we have a very safe nation in that it's unlikely a dictator will be over thrown, our currency will collapse, and we have an educated and stable work force.  Corporations looking to off-shore production could choose Somalia or South Korea, why do they choose South Korea even though the taxes are so much higher than Somalia?
This is why I say that putting a tax on trades will not inherently mean that capital will up and leave.  It will stay as long as the system is better.....heck, a better system may come along even without us raising taxes and capital will leave.

[phwadsworth]

sometimes money isn't the measure.  It is always a factor!

Yes, but how can you continue anything without factoring the money?

really?

[Killerbrandt]

sometimes money isn't the measure.  It is always a factor!

Yes, but how can you continue anything without factoring the money?

really?

Sorry, said it wrong, it should always be a Metric!

Yes really! How do you support yourself? With just debt after debt? Do you go to work thinking, "Gee! I can't wait to lose money here". Do you buy an item without ever looking at the cost? Do you just buy a house without caring how much it will be to run it and that you have enough to support it?

[brett2k07]

France has seen tons of Millionaires leaving their country over the years. History shows that the wealth can leave anytime they want or move wealth from out of the states, if needed. I need to find it, but California is experiencing a huge movement of people leaving the state, along with many businesses.

Sure, and is the only reason taxes?  Or is it because as an ecosystem it is not advantageous to stay there?  That's my point.  Saying "if you raise taxes they'll leave" is provably false.  Saying "if you make business and life so bad that they can better value elsewhere"  is a better way to put it.  For example, despite our high taxes and lots of red tape, the US is still a preferred place to do business and invest.  Why?  Because we have a very safe nation in that it's unlikely a dictator will be over thrown, our currency will collapse, and we have an educated and stable work force.  Corporations looking to off-shore production could choose Somalia or South Korea, why do they choose South Korea even though the taxes are so much higher than Somalia?
This is why I say that putting a tax on trades will not inherently mean that capital will up and leave.  It will stay as long as the system is better.....heck, a better system may come along even without us raising taxes and capital will leave.

To be fair, uprooting your family by picking up and leaving your own country is drastically different than reallocating money to a foreign investment. There's virtually no emotional attachment there. You can stay in your own home, but your money is earning money at a lower rate outside of the country where you avoid these types of financial transaction taxes Sanders' is promoting.

Especially with the ease of investing these days, all it takes is a few clicks of a mouse.

[Philociraptor]

I like to focus more on Bernie's Wall Street tax he keep touting. The average voter seems to think that only effects wealthy individuals, but they are sadly misinformed...

+1+1

This is great info brett! I will have to do more research myself, but given this evidence I would have to agree that a transactional tax on trading sounds like a bad idea. HOWEVER, this is one small idea in a massive campaign, should we throw out the baby with the bathwater? I think not.

[phwadsworth]

New Yorkers are leaving. They have been for quite some time. They've actually seen the highest overall net decrease in domestic migration of all 50 states with a total of 653,071 people leaving according to an Empire Center report that was just released in December.

You've missed the point.  We are speaking about the hyper-wealthy leaving because of taxes.  To quote from the article I posted
"The Big Apple’s top 35,400 filers — those with incomes of $598,000 or more — accounted for 45.7 percent of the $7.2 billion in income taxes"

The 653,071 people probably include a few from the hyper wealthy group, but to equate an entire year's domestic migration out of NYC with the hyper-wealthy leaving because of taxes is just wrong.  In fact, the largest reason for people leaving NYC is because it's unaffordable, because the hyper-wealthy keep buying up all the real estate.  The median home price in Manhattan is $1.87MM.  This does not happen when there's an exodus of wealth.

[Killerbrandt]

France has seen tons of Millionaires leaving their country over the years. History shows that the wealth can leave anytime they want or move wealth from out of the states, if needed. I need to find it, but California is experiencing a huge movement of people leaving the state, along with many businesses.

Sure, and is the only reason taxes?  Or is it because as an ecosystem it is not advantageous to stay there?  That's my point.  Saying "if you raise taxes they'll leave" is provably false.  Saying "if you make business and life so bad that they can better value elsewhere"  is a better way to put it.  For example, despite our high taxes and lots of red tape, the US is still a preferred place to do business and invest.  Why?  Because we have a very safe nation in that it's unlikely a dictator will be over thrown, our currency will collapse, and we have an educated and stable work force.  Corporations looking to off-shore production could choose Somalia or South Korea, why do they choose South Korea even though the taxes are so much higher than Somalia?
This is why I say that putting a tax on trades will not inherently mean that capital will up and leave.  It will stay as long as the system is better.....heck, a better system may come along even without us raising taxes and capital will leave.

To be fair, uprooting your family by picking up and leaving your own country is drastically different than reallocating money to a foreign investment. There's virtually no emotional attachment there. You can stay in your own home, but your money is earning money at a lower rate outside of the country where you avoid these types of financial transaction taxes Sanders' is promoting.

Especially with the ease of investing these days, all it takes is a few clicks of a mouse.

+1 This is true!

[brett2k07]

I like to focus more on Bernie's Wall Street tax he keep touting. The average voter seems to think that only effects wealthy individuals, but they are sadly misinformed...

+1+1

This is great info brett! I will have to do more research myself, but given this evidence I would have to agree that a transactional tax on trading sounds like a bad idea. HOWEVER, this is one small idea in a massive campaign, should we throw out the baby with the bathwater? I think not.

I thought about that myself (literally said those exact words). I convinced myself that it speaks to his overall lack of vision and understanding of the implications of his proposals. I want someone with a more concrete understanding of what they're promoting. I'm not so sure he has that. Or maybe he does and doesn't care. Either way, I don't see that as a good thing.

[cheapass]

Now I live in NYC, a city that puts an extra 4% income tax on top of the 8% state income tax, damn! 

Holy fucking shit, is that the top tax bracket or across the board?

For a couple making 200K that's an extra 2K/month.. Invested over 10 years turns into 350K. That's a hell of an opportunity cost to live in the city!

[Killerbrandt]

Now I live in NYC, a city that puts an extra 4% income tax on top of the 8% state income tax, damn! 

Holy fucking shit, is that the top tax bracket or across the board?

For a couple making 200K that's an extra 2K/month.. Invested over 10 years turns into 350K. That's a hell of an opportunity cost to live in the city!

Seriously! That money could have gone to creating a business if they wanted, which would create more paying jobs and provide more benefits to individuals, but nope. OR it could have created a family that was financially independent and would be significantly less dependent on society as a whole.

[phwadsworth]

How do you support yourself? With just debt after debt? Do you go to work thinking, "Gee! I can't wait to lose money here". Do you buy an item without ever looking at the cost? Do you just buy a house without caring how much it will be to run it and that you have enough to support it?

You are totally putting words in my mouth now.  Of course not.  Do not equate hyperbolic idiocy for what I'm suggesting.  You seem to have a "sky is falling" mentality about our current budget, I don't.  Some people even think Bernie will reduce the deficit....I'm not sure.
But, please stop using the strawman.  I think I've been quite clear when and why certain government programs shouldn't be judged just on money and that many (most?) other programs need to be kept to a strict budget, claiming that I'm all or the other is bogus.

[JLee]

I like to focus more on Bernie's Wall Street tax he keep touting. The average voter seems to think that only effects wealthy individuals, but they are sadly misinformed...

+1+1

This is great info brett! I will have to do more research myself, but given this evidence I would have to agree that a transactional tax on trading sounds like a bad idea. HOWEVER, this is one small idea in a massive campaign, should we throw out the baby with the bathwater? I think not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/opinion/the-case-for-a-tax-on-financial-transactions.html?_r=0

Before addressing potential objections, consider this: A one-basis-point tax on $1,000 worth of stock would cost the stock trader a dime. A $100,000 trade would generate a tax of only $10.

Also note:

Still, a transaction tax would be more effective if it were adopted worldwide. Fortunately, we may be headed in that direction. Eleven countries of the European Union agreed to implement such a tax, in 2013, though pressure from opponents caused the introduction to be postponed until next year.

It’s also worth noting that transaction taxes of one type or another have long been in place in countries with thriving financial markets, including Britain, Hong Kong, Singapore and many others. So it simply can’t be the case that they’re unworkable.

So, move trading offshore - but you'll still have transaction taxes.

[Philociraptor]

I thought about that myself (literally said those exact words). I convinced myself that it speaks to his overall lack of vision and understanding of the implications of his proposals. I want someone with a more concrete understanding of what they're promoting. I'm not so sure he has that. Or maybe he does and doesn't care. Either way, I don't see that as a good thing.

I don't think so. It shows that he has a grand vision, but that vision is still in need of refinement. Policy advisers to the POTUS can help temper these ideas and keep them realistic.

[Killerbrandt]

How do you support yourself? With just debt after debt? Do you go to work thinking, "Gee! I can't wait to lose money here". Do you buy an item without ever looking at the cost? Do you just buy a house without caring how much it will be to run it and that you have enough to support it?

You are totally putting words in my mouth now.  Of course not.  Do not equate hyperbolic idiocy for what I'm suggesting.  You seem to have a "sky is falling" mentality about our current budget, I don't.  Some people even think Bernie will reduce the deficit....I'm not sure.
But, please stop using the strawman.  I think I've been quite clear when and why certain government programs shouldn't be judged just on money and that many (most?) other programs need to be kept to a strict budget, claiming that I'm all or the other is bogus.

Ummmm, does that mean you can't reply back to my answer? All you can say is I'm putting words in your mouth and strawman! Seriously! How the hell do you not consider money as a metric? That was a serious question! You need to show me how money should not be used as a metric then, because if we can't support ANYTHING financially, then how do you expect it to continue to do good for us all? Also, show me where this strict budget is that the government has ever followed correctly, because our agency has budgets and that shit is all over the place and failing left and right because our leadership keeps changing it how they want.

[phwadsworth]

Holy fucking shit, is that the top tax bracket or across the board?

For a couple making 200K that's an extra 2K/month.. Invested over 10 years turns into 350K. That's a hell of an opportunity cost to live in the city!

Seriously! That money could have gone to creating a business if they wanted, which would create more paying jobs and provide more benefits to individuals, but nope. OR it could have created a family that was financially independent and would be significantly less dependent on society as a whole.
[/quote]
These are the celebrated really smart captains of industry that the GOP idolizes, the job-creators, yet they claim that high taxes would kill them.  Seriously, there is more to the equation than just taxes and money!

[2lazy2retire]

I like to focus more on Bernie's Wall Street tax he keep touting. The average voter seems to think that only effects wealthy individuals, but they are sadly misinformed.

Correct.  It's really unfortunate that Wall Street is being used as the "other to blame" just like Trump is blaming immigrants and Muslims.  Both are over simplifications at best, red herrings at worst.

If the wealthy move most of their trading offshore

I find this general argument to be specious.  In this case it may happen, but the general idea that if we raise taxes on the rich they will take their ball and go home is incorrect.  I came from one of the highest taxed states in the Union, Vermont, and in Chittenden county I was surrounded by extremely rich people.  Rich people saw that they got a lot of value for their taxes, and every time the local Republicans screamed about a tax raise and the coming exodus of capital from the county/state, it didn't happen.
Now I live in NYC, a city that puts an extra 4% income tax on top of the 8% state income tax, damn!  All of these hyper wealthy people could easily move to Miami and be rid of those taxes, or even just across the river and cut their bill signifcantly.  But they don't.  Because there's more to the equation than just taxes.  These not-stupid-wealthy-investors are paying BILLIONS annual in extra taxes to stay in NYC.
Time may prove me wrong, but I don't think that any small tax increase will make the current very safe and well understood system pick up and move to another country.
Do I think that the tax could be detrimental to everyday people? Yeah, it will hurt returns....I'm not sure if it will be a net loss though with gains made elsewhere....see my previous comments on not measuring everything with the money yardstick.

France has seen tons of Millionaires leaving their country over the years. History shows that the wealth can leave anytime they want or move wealth from out of the states, if needed. I need to find it, but California is experiencing a huge movement of people leaving the state, along with many businesses.

Here is the France link

[url]http://www.france24.com/en/20150808-france-wealthy-flee-high-taxes-les-echos-figures[url]

Its alot easier to leave France than the US - just pointing that out , I tend to agree that a mass exodus of wealthy people is unlikely - did we see it back when rates were much higher? - you average multi millionaire is no fool, he like s the security of living here , plus leaving the US is a tricky business not impossible but does involve renouncing your citizenship for example

[JLee]

I thought about that myself (literally said those exact words). I convinced myself that it speaks to his overall lack of vision and understanding of the implications of his proposals. I want someone with a more concrete understanding of what they're promoting. I'm not so sure he has that. Or maybe he does and doesn't care. Either way, I don't see that as a good thing.

I don't think so. It shows that he has a grand vision, but that vision is still in need of refinement. Policy advisers to the POTUS can help temper these ideas and keep them realistic.

The biggest thing that stands out to me about Sanders is that he will openly say that we need more tax revenue to pay for stuff. So many other people go on and on about cutting taxes - but that's clearly not going to work. Taxes have been cut dramatically over the last ~60 years, so it's not like an increase would be some horrific event.

Here's the inflation-adjusted tax bracket for 1953:

[Jack]

Now I live in NYC, a city that puts an extra 4% income tax on top of the 8% state income tax, damn! 

Holy fucking shit, is that the top tax bracket or across the board?

For a couple making 200K that's an extra 2K/month.. Invested over 10 years turns into 350K. That's a hell of an opportunity cost to live in the city!

Seriously! That money could have gone to creating a business if they wanted, which would create more paying jobs and provide more benefits to individuals, but nope. OR it could have created a family that was financially independent and would be significantly less dependent on society as a whole.

... But instead it goes into creating the kind of public infrastructure that causes the area to be so fucking desirable that the median home price is $1.87M. And clearly the city isn't hurting for jobs, either. Sounds like giving it to the government didn't work out so badly after all!

You seem to have this insane idea that when the government gets money all it does is light it on fire while laughing maniacally. Maybe that's what they do in the department you work for -- in which case, please knock it off! -- but it is extremely obvious to just about everybody else in this conversation that other parts of government are not so dysfunctional.

[JLee]

How do you support yourself? With just debt after debt? Do you go to work thinking, "Gee! I can't wait to lose money here". Do you buy an item without ever looking at the cost? Do you just buy a house without caring how much it will be to run it and that you have enough to support it?

You are totally putting words in my mouth now.  Of course not.  Do not equate hyperbolic idiocy for what I'm suggesting.  You seem to have a "sky is falling" mentality about our current budget, I don't.  Some people even think Bernie will reduce the deficit....I'm not sure.
But, please stop using the strawman.  I think I've been quite clear when and why certain government programs shouldn't be judged just on money and that many (most?) other programs need to be kept to a strict budget, claiming that I'm all or the other is bogus.

Ummmm, does that mean you can't reply back to my answer? All you can say is I'm putting words in your mouth and strawman! Seriously! How the hell do you not consider money as a metric? That was a serious question! You need to show me how money should not be used as a metric then, because if we can't support ANYTHING financially, then how do you expect it to continue to do good for us all? Also, show me where this strict budget is that the government has ever followed correctly, because our agency has budgets and that shit is all over the place and failing left and right because our leadership keeps changing it how they want.

Before you go running around accusing people of not replying to you, perhaps you should follow up with this post.

[Killerbrandt]

I like to focus more on Bernie's Wall Street tax he keep touting. The average voter seems to think that only effects wealthy individuals, but they are sadly misinformed.

Correct.  It's really unfortunate that Wall Street is being used as the "other to blame" just like Trump is blaming immigrants and Muslims.  Both are over simplifications at best, red herrings at worst.

If the wealthy move most of their trading offshore

I find this general argument to be specious.  In this case it may happen, but the general idea that if we raise taxes on the rich they will take their ball and go home is incorrect.  I came from one of the highest taxed states in the Union, Vermont, and in Chittenden county I was surrounded by extremely rich people.  Rich people saw that they got a lot of value for their taxes, and every time the local Republicans screamed about a tax raise and the coming exodus of capital from the county/state, it didn't happen.
Now I live in NYC, a city that puts an extra 4% income tax on top of the 8% state income tax, damn!  All of these hyper wealthy people could easily move to Miami and be rid of those taxes, or even just across the river and cut their bill signifcantly.  But they don't.  Because there's more to the equation than just taxes.  These not-stupid-wealthy-investors are paying BILLIONS annual in extra taxes to stay in NYC.
Time may prove me wrong, but I don't think that any small tax increase will make the current very safe and well understood system pick up and move to another country.
Do I think that the tax could be detrimental to everyday people? Yeah, it will hurt returns....I'm not sure if it will be a net loss though with gains made elsewhere....see my previous comments on not measuring everything with the money yardstick.

France has seen tons of Millionaires leaving their country over the years. History shows that the wealth can leave anytime they want or move wealth from out of the states, if needed. I need to find it, but California is experiencing a huge movement of people leaving the state, along with many businesses.

Here is the France link

[url]http://www.france24.com/en/20150808-france-wealthy-flee-high-taxes-les-echos-figures[url]

Its alot easier to leave France than the US - just pointing that out , I tend to agree that a mass exodus of wealthy people is unlikely - did we see it back when rates were much higher? - you average multi millionaire is no fool, he like s the security of living here , plus leaving the US is a tricky business not impossible but does involve renouncing your citizenship for example

That is why the don't necessarily have to leave the country to move their wealth in the modern age. They can send companies overseas, they can move accounts offshore, there are many ways they can move their wealth. Like someone mentioned earlier, the wealthy are not dumb with their money.

[2lazy2retire]

France has seen tons of Millionaires leaving their country over the years. History shows that the wealth can leave anytime they want or move wealth from out of the states, if needed. I need to find it, but California is experiencing a huge movement of people leaving the state, along with many businesses.

Sure, and is the only reason taxes?  Or is it because as an ecosystem it is not advantageous to stay there?  That's my point.  Saying "if you raise taxes they'll leave" is provably false.  Saying "if you make business and life so bad that they can better value elsewhere"  is a better way to put it.  For example, despite our high taxes and lots of red tape, the US is still a preferred place to do business and invest.  Why?  Because we have a very safe nation in that it's unlikely a dictator will be over thrown, our currency will collapse, and we have an educated and stable work force.  Corporations looking to off-shore production could choose Somalia or South Korea, why do they choose South Korea even though the taxes are so much higher than Somalia?
This is why I say that putting a tax on trades will not inherently mean that capital will up and leave.  It will stay as long as the system is better.....heck, a better system may come along even without us raising taxes and capital will leave.

To be fair, uprooting your family by picking up and leaving your own country is drastically different than reallocating money to a foreign investment. There's virtually no emotional attachment there. You can stay in your own home, but your money is earning money at a lower rate outside of the country where you avoid these types of financial transaction taxes Sanders' is promoting.

Especially with the ease of investing these days, all it takes is a few clicks of a mouse.

A few clicks of a mouse that will expose you to PFICs,  FBAR's and FATCA's - without getting into detail , a tax filing nightmare. and if your investment falls under PFIC ( quite likely if its foreign) it will be taxed as regular income as opposed to LTG income - ie alot more costly that any trading tax or put it another way, you have no f@cking idea what your talking about ;)

[Killerbrandt]

How do you support yourself? With just debt after debt? Do you go to work thinking, "Gee! I can't wait to lose money here". Do you buy an item without ever looking at the cost? Do you just buy a house without caring how much it will be to run it and that you have enough to support it?

You are totally putting words in my mouth now.  Of course not.  Do not equate hyperbolic idiocy for what I'm suggesting.  You seem to have a "sky is falling" mentality about our current budget, I don't.  Some people even think Bernie will reduce the deficit....I'm not sure.
But, please stop using the strawman.  I think I've been quite clear when and why certain government programs shouldn't be judged just on money and that many (most?) other programs need to be kept to a strict budget, claiming that I'm all or the other is bogus.

Ummmm, does that mean you can't reply back to my answer? All you can say is I'm putting words in your mouth and strawman! Seriously! How the hell do you not consider money as a metric? That was a serious question! You need to show me how money should not be used as a metric then, because if we can't support ANYTHING financially, then how do you expect it to continue to do good for us all? Also, show me where this strict budget is that the government has ever followed correctly, because our agency has budgets and that shit is all over the place and failing left and right because our leadership keeps changing it how they want.

Before you go running around accusing people of not replying to you, perhaps you should follow up with this post.

Missed that post and just replied. Hope that makes you happy!