Trump and Bernie would destroy the US economy

[cheapass]

Bernies biggest obstacle is that many Americans think they are soon to be billionaires and he will steal their money...realistically the majority will benefit from his policies.

People mock the democratic socialist countries he cites often....they could teach America a lot.....http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/27/464586586/what-were-the-least-and-most-corrupt-countries-in-2015

As for Trump, he'll probably deport me.

So because the majority will benefit from his policies, it's justifiable to take money from the minority and give out free shit for everyone?

The majority in the US supported slavery too.

Our political system is supposed to protect against "tyranny of the majority" aka mob rule

[nereo]

So because the majority will benefit from his policies, it's justifiable to take money from the minority and give out free shit for everyone?

Not a very nuanced argument, but broadly speaking I would say yes; if a policy is beneficial to a large majority of people and only negatively impacts a small minority it should be considered.  To do it the other way around is a tyranny.

The majority in the US supported slavery too.

No, they did not.

Our political system is supposed to protect against "tyranny of the majority" aka mob rule

It is supposed to protect the minority but serve the majority.

[ncornilsen]

As for Jacks' comment about buy and hold being affected the least... umm, No. False.   If you buy an S&P500 fund, that fund is obligated by it's prospectus to trade to maintain ratios of stock in each of the 500 companies according to their market cap. As those ratios change, so must the mutual fund, and those transactions would be taxed.

Do you understand what "cap-weighting" means? It means that changes in the value are proportional to changes in the allocation percentage, so they cancel out. Transactions get triggered mostly by things like changes in the amount of assets under management or companies entering or leaving the index.

I understand it, I was just rushing to write that out before I had to leave my computer. None the less, the turn over was 3.4% last year.apply the Sanders tax to it, and that's a .17% expense! When Vanguard charges .05%, it isn't so tiny any more, is it?

As for Trump, he'll probably deport me.

If you're an illegal alien, I'm not exactly going to play a sad violin for you. I'm pretty sure that's the only group of people he's talked about deporting.

[cheapass]

So because the majority will benefit from his policies, it's justifiable to take money from the minority and give out free shit for everyone?

Not a very nuanced argument, but broadly speaking I would say yes; if a policy is beneficial to a large majority of people and only negatively impacts a small minority it should be considered.  To do it the other way around is a tyranny.

The majority in the US supported slavery too.

No, they did not.

Our political system is supposed to protect against "tyranny of the majority" aka mob rule

It is supposed to protect the minority but serve the majority.

I was mistaken, apparently the majority did not support slavery.

If they did, I guess it would have been okay since the majority's rights trump the minority's. If Hitler would have been able to get a 51% vote, would that have justified what he did to the Jews?

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

[nereo]

As for Jacks' comment about buy and hold being affected the least... umm, No. False.   If you buy an S&P500 fund, that fund is obligated by it's prospectus to trade to maintain ratios of stock in each of the 500 companies according to their market cap. As those ratios change, so must the mutual fund, and those transactions would be taxed.

Do you understand what "cap-weighting" means? It means that changes in the value are proportional to changes in the allocation percentage, so they cancel out. Transactions get triggered mostly by things like changes in the amount of assets under management or companies entering or leaving the index.

I understand it, I was just rushing to write that out before I had to leave my computer. None the less, the turn over was 3.4% last year.apply the Sanders tax to it, and that's a .17% expense! When Vanguard charges .05%, it isn't so tiny any more, is it?

Where are you getting your numbers from?  What I read is that the proposal is about financial transaction tax that is only a couple of basis points.  One basis point is 0.01%.  If the turnover of Vanguard's SP500 fund is 3.4%, and the transaction cost is one basis point, the added expense will not be 0.17%  Turnover depends on which stocks are being bought and sold out of an index of 500, but let's assume they're all equal for simplicity.  A $10,000 portfolio with a 3.4% turnover = $340. Per basis point that charge would be less than a penny.

Also, you can't analyze this in a vacuum.  I consider anything under 0.2% to be quite small - it's only $200 in fees per $100,000. It's easy to look at two fees, one at 0.05% and anotehr at 0.01% and freak out saying "that's twice as much!" but in absolute $ terms it barely adds up to a hill of beans for your typical mustachian even over several decades.  If it generates revenue, and that revenue is used to better society that has to be taken into account.

[Killerbrandt]

Bernies biggest obstacle is that many Americans think they are soon to be billionaires and he will steal their money...realistically the majority will benefit from his policies.

People mock the democratic socialist countries he cites often....they could teach America a lot.....http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/27/464586586/what-were-the-least-and-most-corrupt-countries-in-2015

As for Trump, he'll probably deport me.

So because the majority will benefit from his policies, it's justifiable to take money from the minority and give out free shit for everyone?

The majority in the US supported slavery too.

Our political system is supposed to protect against "tyranny of the majority" aka mob rule

I am with you Armueller!

The Majority wouldn't even benefit from Sanders policies. It would for a fact affect everyone's personal finances by lowering take home pay, destroy the stock market, give lower quality medical services to all, lower individual freedoms, decrease the overall economy, punish people that want to become innovative, punish small business, ect. Why can't we teach individuals to become more responsible instead? instead of taxing us to death and trying to copy other countries that have proven that socialism is a failed system. All those examples of Norway and Denmark are completely false. They only point out a few positives, but even those are false! Free educations? that is a lie! Most have to test to even get into college, you can't just jump into any degree you want. Medical? Yeah majority are put on waiting lists or go to other countries for medical care. Also, their economies are crashing! That is why there have been recent trends in those countries voting conservative parties and HUGE decreases in social programs. These countries are going dirt broke trying to provide for all. Did any of you watch the prime minister of Denmark recently? He told Sanders to stop using them as an example, they are and have been moving away from the old socialist way for years now. In addition, most those countries have no military at all! There is no way we could drop our military to their levels and not be threatened to death by Russia, China and many other nations that would take advantage of that weakness in a heartbeat. Just a few months ago one of the Scandinavian countries couldn't even find a Russian sub in their harbor, after a few days they called the USA, which found it in less than an hour and forced them to leave. How pathetic is that? Why do we want to keep trying to be like other countries?

Quick blerp, back when my family was living in Okinawa on Kadena AFB, the base and the Japanese government got news from Russia that if the USA ever left Okinawa, Russia would claim it right way. This threat was given when the USA was thinking about closing the base or reorganizing its structure. These are real threats in the world, we don't live in a world of just hugs, so no lowering the military budget like some have said before, would be a huge mistake, just so we could for a short time cover people for mediocre medical care and schooling.

[Killerbrandt]

As for Jacks' comment about buy and hold being affected the least... umm, No. False.   If you buy an S&P500 fund, that fund is obligated by it's prospectus to trade to maintain ratios of stock in each of the 500 companies according to their market cap. As those ratios change, so must the mutual fund, and those transactions would be taxed.

Do you understand what "cap-weighting" means? It means that changes in the value are proportional to changes in the allocation percentage, so they cancel out. Transactions get triggered mostly by things like changes in the amount of assets under management or companies entering or leaving the index.

I understand it, I was just rushing to write that out before I had to leave my computer. None the less, the turn over was 3.4% last year.apply the Sanders tax to it, and that's a .17% expense! When Vanguard charges .05%, it isn't so tiny any more, is it?

Where are you getting your numbers from?  What I read is that the proposal is about financial transaction tax that is only a couple of basis points.  One basis point is 0.01%.  If the turnover of Vanguard's SP500 fund is 3.4%, and the transaction cost is one basis point, the added expense will not be 0.17%  Turnover depends on which stocks are being bought and sold out of an index of 500, but let's assume they're all equal for simplicity.  A $10,000 portfolio with a 3.4% turnover = $340. Per basis point that charge would be less than a penny.

Also, you can't analyze this in a vacuum.  I consider anything under 0.2% to be quite small - it's only $200 in fees per $100,000. It's easy to look at two fees, one at 0.05% and anotehr at 0.01% and freak out saying "that's twice as much!" but in absolute $ terms it barely adds up to a hill of beans for your typical mustachian even over several decades.  If it generates revenue, and that revenue is used to better society that has to be taken into account.

The link I keep providing showing a 2.5 percent increase to every stock transaction proposed along with significant increases in Capital gains taxes.

[ncornilsen]

I got the 3.4% from Vangaurd. I assumed the 3.4% was in dollars, which normalized for differences in stock prices.

What I have seen is he has proposed a $0.50 tax on every $100 in stock sales, or .5%.

.034*.005=.00017. Oops, I forgot a zero when I originally calculated. So its .017%. Still don't care, it's a drag on my returns, which I could use much more effectively in retirement than some entitled 18 year old who thinks the deserve a free history degree. Especially after I paid for (by working 24+ hours per week) my own degree. I get double fucked. No Thanks.

I also have a huge problem with the mentality behind Sanders tax plans, as it perpetuates the lie that investing is all about fraud and only rick people can/should do it. This means that I'll be forced to pay even more in SS to cover the idiots who decided not to invest and save for the future.

Look, if you want to let Sanders piss on your back and tell you its a warm shower, go ahead. I won't, he is no friend of the middle class.

[Killerbrandt]

I got the 3.4% from Vangaurd. I assumed the 3.4% was in dollars, which normalized for differences in stock prices.

What I have seen is he has proposed a $0.50 tax on every $100 in stock sales, or .5%.

.034*.005=.00017. Oops, I forgot a zero when I originally calculated. So its .017%. Still don't care, it's a drag on my returns, which I could use much more effectively in retirement than some entitled 18 year old who thinks the deserve a free history degree. Especially after I paid for (by working 24+ hours per week) my own degree. I get double fucked. No Thanks.

I also have a huge problem with the mentality behind Sanders tax plans, as it perpetuates the lie that investing is all about fraud and only rick people can/should do it. This means that I'll be forced to pay even more in SS to cover the idiots who decided not to invest and save for the future.

Look, if you want to let Sanders piss on your back and tell you its a warm shower, go ahead. I won't, he is no friend of the middle class.

Every article including the link I provided earlier has said a 2.5 percent tax on transactions, so even worse than what you calculated. I am with you 100 percent though with your way of thinking.

[ncornilsen]

Bernies biggest obstacle is that many Americans think they are soon to be billionaires and he will steal their money...realistically the majority will benefit from his policies.

People mock the democratic socialist countries he cites often....they could teach America a lot.....http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/27/464586586/what-were-the-least-and-most-corrupt-countries-in-2015

As for Trump, he'll probably deport me.

So because the majority will benefit from his policies, it's justifiable to take money from the minority and give out free shit for everyone?

The majority in the US supported slavery too.

Our political system is supposed to protect against "tyranny of the majority" aka mob rule

I am with you Armueller!

The Majority wouldn't even benefit from Sanders policies. It would for a fact affect everyone's personal finances by lowering take home pay, destroy the stock market, give lower quality medical services to all, lower individual freedoms, decrease the overall economy, punish people that want to become innovative, punish small business, ect. Why can't we teach individuals to become more responsible instead? instead of taxing us to death and trying to copy other countries that have proven that socialism is a failed system. All those examples of Norway and Denmark are completely false. They only point out a few positives, but even those are false! Free educations? that is a lie! Most have to test to even get into college, you can't just jump into any degree you want. Medical? Yeah majority are put on waiting lists or go to other countries for medical care. Also, their economies are crashing! That is why there have been recent trends in those countries voting conservative parties and HUGE decreases in social programs. These countries are going dirt broke trying to provide for all. Did any of you watch the prime minister of Denmark recently? He told Sanders to stop using them as an example, they are and have been moving away from the old socialist way for years now. In addition, most those countries have no military at all! There is no way we could drop our military to their levels and not be threatened to death by Russia, China and many other nations that would take advantage of that weakness in a heartbeat. Just a few months ago one of the Scandinavian countries couldn't even find a Russian sub in their harbor, after a few days they called the USA, which found it in less than an hour and forced them to leave. How pathetic is that? Why do we want to keep trying to be like other countries?

Quick blerp, back when my family was living in Okinawa on Kadena AFB, the base and the Japanese government got news from Russia that if the USA ever left Okinawa, Russia would claim it right way. This threat was given when the USA was thinking about closing the base or reorganizing its structure. These are real threats in the world, we don't live in a world of just hugs, so no lowering the military budget like some have said before, would be a huge mistake, just so we could for a short time cover people for mediocre medical care and schooling.

Agreed. Except we could probably give defense spending a 5% haircut and have them quit making stupid decisions on what we spend it on, and have the same level of security.

[cheapass]

Quick blerp, back when my family was living in Okinawa on Kadena AFB, the base and the Japanese government got news from Russia that if the USA ever left Okinawa, Russia would claim it right way. This threat was given when the USA was thinking about closing the base or reorganizing its structure. These are real threats in the world, we don't live in a world of just hugs, so no lowering the military budget like some have said before, would be a huge mistake, just so we could for a short time cover people for mediocre medical care and schooling.

Going to have to go ahead and disagree with you here on the military spending. Do we really need flying killer robots buzzing around every country in the middle east? Is it necessary to spend as much on "defense" (aka "empire building") as the next 12 countries combined? Do we need to pay for hundreds of military bases across the globe as well as multiple illegal wars going on simultaneously? With a 18 trillion dollar debt load?

Maybe people in the middle east hate us for a reason. It's not our "freedom" it's that we're blowing up their relatives and occupying their countries. I know if the roles were reversed and another country was occupying the U.S. and carpet bombing the place, I'd make it my life's mission to take out as many of them as possible.

[Killerbrandt]

Bernies biggest obstacle is that many Americans think they are soon to be billionaires and he will steal their money...realistically the majority will benefit from his policies.

People mock the democratic socialist countries he cites often....they could teach America a lot.....http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/27/464586586/what-were-the-least-and-most-corrupt-countries-in-2015

As for Trump, he'll probably deport me.

So because the majority will benefit from his policies, it's justifiable to take money from the minority and give out free shit for everyone?

The majority in the US supported slavery too.

Our political system is supposed to protect against "tyranny of the majority" aka mob rule

I am with you Armueller!

The Majority wouldn't even benefit from Sanders policies. It would for a fact affect everyone's personal finances by lowering take home pay, destroy the stock market, give lower quality medical services to all, lower individual freedoms, decrease the overall economy, punish people that want to become innovative, punish small business, ect. Why can't we teach individuals to become more responsible instead? instead of taxing us to death and trying to copy other countries that have proven that socialism is a failed system. All those examples of Norway and Denmark are completely false. They only point out a few positives, but even those are false! Free educations? that is a lie! Most have to test to even get into college, you can't just jump into any degree you want. Medical? Yeah majority are put on waiting lists or go to other countries for medical care. Also, their economies are crashing! That is why there have been recent trends in those countries voting conservative parties and HUGE decreases in social programs. These countries are going dirt broke trying to provide for all. Did any of you watch the prime minister of Denmark recently? He told Sanders to stop using them as an example, they are and have been moving away from the old socialist way for years now. In addition, most those countries have no military at all! There is no way we could drop our military to their levels and not be threatened to death by Russia, China and many other nations that would take advantage of that weakness in a heartbeat. Just a few months ago one of the Scandinavian countries couldn't even find a Russian sub in their harbor, after a few days they called the USA, which found it in less than an hour and forced them to leave. How pathetic is that? Why do we want to keep trying to be like other countries?

Quick blerp, back when my family was living in Okinawa on Kadena AFB, the base and the Japanese government got news from Russia that if the USA ever left Okinawa, Russia would claim it right way. This threat was given when the USA was thinking about closing the base or reorganizing its structure. These are real threats in the world, we don't live in a world of just hugs, so no lowering the military budget like some have said before, would be a huge mistake, just so we could for a short time cover people for mediocre medical care and schooling.

Agreed. Except we could probably give defense spending a 5% haircut and have them quit making stupid decisions on what we spend it on, and have the same level of security.

I agree that a small cut could easily happen and using the money more wisely! There is a ton of waste and fat that can be trimmed down, but so many think we can just pull out of all our bases and just demolish our military strength. It is just not realistic with today's world.

[Killerbrandt]

Quick blerp, back when my family was living in Okinawa on Kadena AFB, the base and the Japanese government got news from Russia that if the USA ever left Okinawa, Russia would claim it right way. This threat was given when the USA was thinking about closing the base or reorganizing its structure. These are real threats in the world, we don't live in a world of just hugs, so no lowering the military budget like some have said before, would be a huge mistake, just so we could for a short time cover people for mediocre medical care and schooling.

Going to have to go ahead and disagree with you here on the military spending. Do we really need flying killer robots buzzing around every country in the middle east? Is it necessary to spend as much on "defense" (aka "empire building") as the next 12 countries combined? Do we need to pay for hundreds of military bases across the globe as well as multiple illegal wars going on simultaneously? With a 18 trillion dollar debt load?

Maybe people in the middle east hate us for a reason. It's not our "freedom" it's that we're blowing up their relatives and occupying their countries. I know if the roles were reversed and another country was occupying the U.S. and carpet bombing the place, I'd make it my life's mission to take out as many of them as possible.

Yeah we wont see eye to eye on the military issues. I am an analyst with the DoD and you would throw up with the type of things other nations commit on a daily basis and how much we actually prevent by having a major presence. Also, our flying death machines need to keep up and above other countries flying death machines. It is a proven fact that whoever controls the air will maintain world military dominance. I for one would rather have the USA be at the top and not Russia or China who have an even worse track record of human rights violations and killings on a massive scale. In addition, have you seen the success rate of the UN when called in for help? look up Bosnia and the massacre that happened until the USA arrived, that is just one example of many ways we keep peace.

[nereo]

I got the 3.4% from Vangaurd. I assumed the 3.4% was in dollars, which normalized for differences in stock prices.

What I have seen is he has proposed a $0.50 tax on every $100 in stock sales, or .5%.

.034*.005=.00017. Oops, I forgot a zero when I originally calculated. So its .017%. Still don't care, it's a drag on my returns, which I could use much more effectively in retirement than some entitled 18 year old who thinks the deserve a free history degree. Especially after I paid for (by working 24+ hours per week) my own degree. I get double fucked. No Thanks.

I also have a huge problem with the mentality behind Sanders tax plans, as it perpetuates the lie that investing is all about fraud and only rick people can/should do it. This means that I'll be forced to pay even more in SS to cover the idiots who decided not to invest and save for the future.

Look, if you want to let Sanders piss on your back and tell you its a warm shower, go ahead. I won't, he is no friend of the middle class.

Every article including the link I provided earlier has said a 2.5 percent tax on transactions, so even worse than what you calculated. I am with you 100 percent though with your way of thinking.

What link?  I keep reading back threads hwere you talk about this link but didn't repost it.  Please post the link again.  Thanks.

Here's a link talking about a 'few' basis points;
Here's a link to Sanders' transaction fee on his website.

I'm having a hard time finding numbers.

[Killerbrandt]

I got the 3.4% from Vangaurd. I assumed the 3.4% was in dollars, which normalized for differences in stock prices.

What I have seen is he has proposed a $0.50 tax on every $100 in stock sales, or .5%.

.034*.005=.00017. Oops, I forgot a zero when I originally calculated. So its .017%. Still don't care, it's a drag on my returns, which I could use much more effectively in retirement than some entitled 18 year old who thinks the deserve a free history degree. Especially after I paid for (by working 24+ hours per week) my own degree. I get double fucked. No Thanks.

I also have a huge problem with the mentality behind Sanders tax plans, as it perpetuates the lie that investing is all about fraud and only rick people can/should do it. This means that I'll be forced to pay even more in SS to cover the idiots who decided not to invest and save for the future.

Look, if you want to let Sanders piss on your back and tell you its a warm shower, go ahead. I won't, he is no friend of the middle class.

Every article including the link I provided earlier has said a 2.5 percent tax on transactions, so even worse than what you calculated. I am with you 100 percent though with your way of thinking.

What link?  I keep reading back threads hwere you talk about this link but didn't repost it.  Please post the link again.  Thanks.

Here's a link talking about a 'few' basis points;
Here's a link to Sanders' transaction fee on his website.

I'm having a hard time finding numbers.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan

Here you go, did it post? Maybe I am posting it wrong.

[Jack]

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

That's all well and good, but casting the proverbial "1%" as the lamb in that analogy is laughable.

As for Jacks' comment about buy and hold being affected the least... umm, No. False.   If you buy an S&P500 fund, that fund is obligated by it's prospectus to trade to maintain ratios of stock in each of the 500 companies according to their market cap. As those ratios change, so must the mutual fund, and those transactions would be taxed.

Do you understand what "cap-weighting" means? It means that changes in the value are proportional to changes in the allocation percentage, so they cancel out. Transactions get triggered mostly by things like changes in the amount of assets under management or companies entering or leaving the index.

I understand it, I was just rushing to write that out before I had to leave my computer. None the less, the turn over was 3.4% last year.apply the Sanders tax to it, and that's a .17% expense! When Vanguard charges .05%, it isn't so tiny any more, is it?

Where are you getting your numbers from?  What I read is that the proposal is about financial transaction tax that is only a couple of basis points.  One basis point is 0.01%.  If the turnover of Vanguard's SP500 fund is 3.4%, and the transaction cost is one basis point, the added expense will not be 0.17%  Turnover depends on which stocks are being bought and sold out of an index of 500, but let's assume they're all equal for simplicity.  A $10,000 portfolio with a 3.4% turnover = $340. Per basis point that charge would be less than a penny.

Also, you can't analyze this in a vacuum.  I consider anything under 0.2% to be quite small - it's only $200 in fees per $100,000. It's easy to look at two fees, one at 0.05% and anotehr at 0.01% and freak out saying "that's twice as much!" but in absolute $ terms it barely adds up to a hill of beans for your typical mustachian even over several decades.  If it generates revenue, and that revenue is used to better society that has to be taken into account.

Even if 0.17% were correct -- and I agree that it probably isn't, all that means is that Vanguard Admiral shares then would have the same ER as Investor shares do now. Not exactly world-ending!

The Majority wouldn't even benefit from Sanders policies. It would for a fact affect everyone's personal finances by lowering take home pay, destroy the stock market, give lower quality medical services to all, lower individual freedoms, decrease the overall economy, punish people that want to become innovative, punish small business, ect.

No, it would do the opposite of all those things.

(Hey look! My claim is backed up with just as much evidence as yours -- which is to say, none.)

Free educations? that is a lie! Most have to test to even get into college, you can't just jump into any degree you want.

How is that not good? We have admissions standards here too, at least for places that aren't diploma mills...

Medical? Yeah majority are put on waiting lists or go to other countries for medical care.

How is that worse than the situation here, where the majority forego it altogether because they can't afford it, or go to other countries where it's cheaper?

Also, their economies are crashing! That is why there have been recent trends in those countries voting conservative parties and HUGE decreases in social programs. These countries are going dirt broke trying to provide for all. Did any of you watch the prime minister of Denmark recently? He told Sanders to stop using them as an example, they are and have been moving away from the old socialist way for years now.

So maybe they erred on the side of too much socialism. That doesn't mean we couldn't have erred on the side of too little.

In addition, most those countries have no military at all! There is no way we could drop our military to their levels and not be threatened to death by Russia, China and many other nations that would take advantage of that weakness in a heartbeat. Just a few months ago one of the Scandinavian countries couldn't even find a Russian sub in their harbor, after a few days they called the USA, which found it in less than an hour and forced them to leave. How pathetic is that? Why do we want to keep trying to be like other countries?

Quick blerp, back when my family was living in Okinawa on Kadena AFB, the base and the Japanese government got news from Russia that if the USA ever left Okinawa, Russia would claim it right way. This threat was given when the USA was thinking about closing the base or reorganizing its structure. These are real threats in the world, we don't live in a world of just hugs, so no lowering the military budget like some have said before, would be a huge mistake, just so we could for a short time cover people for mediocre medical care and schooling.

• False dichotomy: cutting military spending does not mean having "no military at all."
• We could cut military spending literally by half and still be out-spending the next two highest countries (China and Russia) combined.
• You are biased and making a self-serving argument because your family is apparently military.

[nereo]

I got the 3.4% from Vangaurd. I assumed the 3.4% was in dollars, which normalized for differences in stock prices.

What I have seen is he has proposed a $0.50 tax on every $100 in stock sales, or .5%.

.034*.005=.00017. Oops, I forgot a zero when I originally calculated. So its .017%. Still don't care, it's a drag on my returns, which I could use much more effectively in retirement than some entitled 18 year old who thinks the deserve a free history degree. Especially after I paid for (by working 24+ hours per week) my own degree. I get double fucked. No Thanks.

That's an order of manitude difference, and we're talking about the possibility of going from 0.05% to 0.067%. 
Per $100,000 invested, that would be $17, or a portfolio drag of just 0.017%.  Given nominal returns of around 10%/year we're talking incredibly small amounts here.  It's also worth looking at an historical perspective.  Until very recently, anything under 0.2% was unheard.  When Vanguard brought out the SP500 index it had an expense ratio of 0.2%, which was thought to be mind-numbingly low. 
Your assertion that future generations should have to pay for college because you had to are also worrisome to me.  My parents did not have IRAs for most of their working careers, but they don't begrudge our generation because we do.  That's the idea of generational progress - successive generations have more opportunities than previous ones.  I think it is something we should strive for.

Look, if you want to let Sanders piss on your back and tell you its a warm shower, go ahead. I won't, he is no friend of the middle class.

I'm not supporting Sanders.  I'm just trying to look at things objectively. I'm not convinced his policies are a good fit for the USA.

[Killerbrandt]

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

That's all well and good, but casting the proverbial "1%" as the lamb in that analogy is laughable.

As for Jacks' comment about buy and hold being affected the least... umm, No. False.   If you buy an S&P500 fund, that fund is obligated by it's prospectus to trade to maintain ratios of stock in each of the 500 companies according to their market cap. As those ratios change, so must the mutual fund, and those transactions would be taxed.

Do you understand what "cap-weighting" means? It means that changes in the value are proportional to changes in the allocation percentage, so they cancel out. Transactions get triggered mostly by things like changes in the amount of assets under management or companies entering or leaving the index.

I understand it, I was just rushing to write that out before I had to leave my computer. None the less, the turn over was 3.4% last year.apply the Sanders tax to it, and that's a .17% expense! When Vanguard charges .05%, it isn't so tiny any more, is it?

Where are you getting your numbers from?  What I read is that the proposal is about financial transaction tax that is only a couple of basis points.  One basis point is 0.01%.  If the turnover of Vanguard's SP500 fund is 3.4%, and the transaction cost is one basis point, the added expense will not be 0.17%  Turnover depends on which stocks are being bought and sold out of an index of 500, but let's assume they're all equal for simplicity.  A $10,000 portfolio with a 3.4% turnover = $340. Per basis point that charge would be less than a penny.

Also, you can't analyze this in a vacuum.  I consider anything under 0.2% to be quite small - it's only $200 in fees per $100,000. It's easy to look at two fees, one at 0.05% and anotehr at 0.01% and freak out saying "that's twice as much!" but in absolute $ terms it barely adds up to a hill of beans for your typical mustachian even over several decades.  If it generates revenue, and that revenue is used to better society that has to be taken into account.

Even if 0.17% were correct -- and I agree that it probably isn't, all that means is that Vanguard Admiral shares then would have the same ER as Investor shares do now. Not exactly world-ending!

The Majority wouldn't even benefit from Sanders policies. It would for a fact affect everyone's personal finances by lowering take home pay, destroy the stock market, give lower quality medical services to all, lower individual freedoms, decrease the overall economy, punish people that want to become innovative, punish small business, ect.

No, it would do the opposite of all those things.

(Hey look! My claim is backed up with just as much evidence as yours -- which is to say, none.)

Free educations? that is a lie! Most have to test to even get into college, you can't just jump into any degree you want.

How is that not good? We have admissions standards here too, at least for places that aren't diploma mills...

Medical? Yeah majority are put on waiting lists or go to other countries for medical care.

How is that worse than the situation here, where the majority forego it altogether because they can't afford it, or go to other countries where it's cheaper?

Also, their economies are crashing! That is why there have been recent trends in those countries voting conservative parties and HUGE decreases in social programs. These countries are going dirt broke trying to provide for all. Did any of you watch the prime minister of Denmark recently? He told Sanders to stop using them as an example, they are and have been moving away from the old socialist way for years now.

So maybe they erred on the side of too much socialism. That doesn't mean we couldn't have erred on the side of too little.

In addition, most those countries have no military at all! There is no way we could drop our military to their levels and not be threatened to death by Russia, China and many other nations that would take advantage of that weakness in a heartbeat. Just a few months ago one of the Scandinavian countries couldn't even find a Russian sub in their harbor, after a few days they called the USA, which found it in less than an hour and forced them to leave. How pathetic is that? Why do we want to keep trying to be like other countries?

Quick blerp, back when my family was living in Okinawa on Kadena AFB, the base and the Japanese government got news from Russia that if the USA ever left Okinawa, Russia would claim it right way. This threat was given when the USA was thinking about closing the base or reorganizing its structure. These are real threats in the world, we don't live in a world of just hugs, so no lowering the military budget like some have said before, would be a huge mistake, just so we could for a short time cover people for mediocre medical care and schooling.

• False dichotomy: cutting military spending does not mean having "no military at all."
• We could cut military spending literally by half and still be out-spending the next two highest countries (China and Russia) combined.
• You are biased and making a self-serving argument because your family is apparently military.

HA! Look at my freaking link from earlier for proof that it will decrease and drop our economy! Also, just because you cut the military budget in half and remains higher than other nations does not instantly mean we are the most powerful or can keep our stance in the world. That nonsense shows your lack of critical thinking and knowing of the military and how the US Department of Defense works. Who cares that I am from a military family, that just means I have experienced SOCIALISM!!! We got full healthcare, housing and everything! It was all Mediocre at best! We have so much more in the private world and WAY! better healthcare when not controlled by the government! There are rare cases that the military provides good medical care and go out of their way, but go into the clinic with a cough and they will hand you some Tylenol and tell you to get lost, then go back with almost life threatening health issues because they did not bother test you for other issues. Most Americans preach this socialism idea without ever even leaving the country or experiencing first hand, sorry but most the people that I know that have, they would disagree with all of you also. Even a simple history book would show the downfall of socialism in almost every country.

[Killerbrandt]

I got the 3.4% from Vangaurd. I assumed the 3.4% was in dollars, which normalized for differences in stock prices.

What I have seen is he has proposed a $0.50 tax on every $100 in stock sales, or .5%.

.034*.005=.00017. Oops, I forgot a zero when I originally calculated. So its .017%. Still don't care, it's a drag on my returns, which I could use much more effectively in retirement than some entitled 18 year old who thinks the deserve a free history degree. Especially after I paid for (by working 24+ hours per week) my own degree. I get double fucked. No Thanks.

That's an order of manitude difference, and we're talking about the possibility of going from 0.05% to 0.067%. 
Per $100,000 invested, that would be $17, or a portfolio drag of just 0.017%.  Given nominal returns of around 10%/year we're talking incredibly small amounts here.  It's also worth looking at an historical perspective.  Until very recently, anything under 0.2% was unheard.  When Vanguard brought out the SP500 index it had an expense ratio of 0.2%, which was thought to be mind-numbingly low. 
Your assertion that future generations should have to pay for college because you had to are also worrisome to me.  My parents did not have IRAs for most of their working careers, but they don't begrudge our generation because we do.  That's the idea of generational progress - successive generations have more opportunities than previous ones.  I think it is something we should strive for.

Look, if you want to let Sanders piss on your back and tell you its a warm shower, go ahead. I won't, he is no friend of the middle class.

I'm not supporting Sanders.  I'm just trying to look at things objectively. I'm not convinced his policies are a good fit for the USA.

Hey Nereo, did you get my link? I feel like it is not posting right. http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan

[cheapass]

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

That's all well and good, but casting the proverbial "1%" as the lamb in that analogy is laughable.

Sure, today it's the 1%, tomorrow it's the 5%, next week it's the 10%. Where do we cut off what is "acceptable" and "fair"?

There will always be a skinny part of the bell curve that has more, or earns more, than the majority. As long as they earned it legally, why is it my right to kick down their door and force them to give it to me at gunpoint? Or to have the government do it for me?

[nereo]

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan

Here you go, did it post? Maybe I am posting it wrong.

Your source on Bernie Sanders's proposals is put out by the conservative Tax Foundation??  Is it any wonder that it isn't very favorable?

also, from this "report"

Creates a financial transactions tax on the value of stocks, bonds, derivatives, and other financial assets traded by U.S. persons. The rate of the tax ranges from 0.005 percent to 0.5 percent, depending on the type of asset.*

So - even the Tax Foundation says a maximum of 0.5%, so where in the world are you getting 2.5%?

As I said I'm not supporting Sanders here, but we can't have a discussion if we're just randomly throwing unsubstantiated and inflated numbers into the discussion.

[Killerbrandt]

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan

Here you go, did it post? Maybe I am posting it wrong.

Your source on Bernie Sanders's proposals is put out by the conservative Tax Foundation??  Is it any wonder that it isn't very favorable?

also, from this "report"

Creates a financial transactions tax on the value of stocks, bonds, derivatives, and other financial assets traded by U.S. persons. The rate of the tax ranges from 0.005 percent to 0.5 percent, depending on the type of asset.*

So - even the Tax Foundation says a maximum of 0.5%, so where in the world are you getting 2.5%?

As I said I'm not supporting Sanders here, but we can't have a discussion if we're just randomly throwing unsubstantiated and inflated numbers into the discussion.

Finally my link worked!! The 2.5 was from CNN Money, but I would trust the Tax one more, so, my fault, I stand at the .005 percent. However, I would not want to see the possible decrease of GDP by almost 10 percent.

[Killerbrandt]

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan

Here you go, did it post? Maybe I am posting it wrong.

Your source on Bernie Sanders's proposals is put out by the conservative Tax Foundation??  Is it any wonder that it isn't very favorable?

also, from this "report"

Creates a financial transactions tax on the value of stocks, bonds, derivatives, and other financial assets traded by U.S. persons. The rate of the tax ranges from 0.005 percent to 0.5 percent, depending on the type of asset.*

So - even the Tax Foundation says a maximum of 0.5%, so where in the world are you getting 2.5%?

As I said I'm not supporting Sanders here, but we can't have a discussion if we're just randomly throwing unsubstantiated and inflated numbers into the discussion.

Also, yeah you are right, a more clear site of facts would help support it better. However, the tax website I provided is pretty detailed and uses the actual numbers proposed. I know it's a more conservative site, but I bet we could call out every site someone posts as Liberal or Conservative.

[Jack]

HA! Look at my freaking link from earlier for proof that it will decrease and drop our economy!

Made-up numbers from an ALEC-funded "think tank" of dubious impartiality do not constitute "proof."

Also, just because you cut the military budget in half and remains higher than other nations does not instantly mean we are the most powerful or can keep our stance in the world.

So you're saying that despite the fact that our budget dwarfs theirs, the money is being spent so inefficiently that we'd still manage to lose against them? Maybe you should do you job better, Mr. DoD Analyst!

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

That's all well and good, but casting the proverbial "1%" as the lamb in that analogy is laughable.

Sure, today it's the 1%, tomorrow it's the 5%, next week it's the 10%. Where do we cut off what is "acceptable" and "fair"?

There will always be a skinny part of the bell curve that has more, or earns more, than the majority. As long as they earned it legally, why is it my right to kick down their door and force them to give it to me at gunpoint? Or to have the government do it for me?

Who said anything about it being a "right?" It's merely a fact: if inequality gets too extreme, the disaffected masses will murder the aristocracy and take their wealth by force. I support wealth transfers of the sort Sanders proposes because it's the plan most likely to maintain the status-quo!

[GuitarStv]

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

That's all well and good, but casting the proverbial "1%" as the lamb in that analogy is laughable.

Sure, today it's the 1%, tomorrow it's the 5%, next week it's the 10%. Where do we cut off what is "acceptable" and "fair"?

There will always be a skinny part of the bell curve that has more, or earns more, than the majority. As long as they earned it legally, why is it my right to kick down their door and force them to give it to me at gunpoint? Or to have the government do it for me?

Capitalism inevitably concentrates wealth in the hands of the few.  It's fundamental to the way that accumulation of funds ends up, and how money is used to beget more money.  The fundamental unfairness of the system means that unchecked and given a long enough time frame, someone is going to kick down the door of the rich and force them to hand it over at gunpoint.  Better the government take small amounts slowly over long time frames so that the rich can still enjoy their superior position in life than the angry villagers do it after hacking the corpses of the ruling class to death with their machetes.

Taxes actually keep the rich safe.

[Killerbrandt]

HA! Look at my freaking link from earlier for proof that it will decrease and drop our economy!

Made-up numbers from an ALEC-funded "think tank" of dubious impartiality do not constitute "proof."

Also, just because you cut the military budget in half and remains higher than other nations does not instantly mean we are the most powerful or can keep our stance in the world.

So you're saying that despite the fact that our budget dwarfs theirs, the money is being spent so inefficiently that we'd still manage to lose against them? Maybe you should do you job better, Mr. DoD Analyst!

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

That's all well and good, but casting the proverbial "1%" as the lamb in that analogy is laughable.

Sure, today it's the 1%, tomorrow it's the 5%, next week it's the 10%. Where do we cut off what is "acceptable" and "fair"?

There will always be a skinny part of the bell curve that has more, or earns more, than the majority. As long as they earned it legally, why is it my right to kick down their door and force them to give it to me at gunpoint? Or to have the government do it for me?

Who said anything about it being a "right?" It's merely a fact: if inequality gets too extreme, the disaffected masses will murder the aristocracy and take their wealth by force. I support wealth transfers of the sort Sanders proposes because it's the plan most likely to maintain the status-quo!

It is obvious by your posts about military that you have no experience in how any of it works and how those budgets work. By thinking that we can just match their military budgets and be just as strong is ignorance, please prove to me that by cutting our military in half, we would be still the most powerful in the world and not risk our security? Do you even know how much a base costs? how much it costs to fund health in the military, or how the logistics works? I don't think so, please do more research before voting on destroying our security and military.

[nereo]

Finally my link worked!! The 2.5 was from CNN Money, but I would trust the Tax one more, so, my fault, I stand at the .005 percent. However, I would not want to see the possible decrease of GDP by almost 10 percent.

Yes, the link worked.  Thank you for sending it again. 
I don't want to see a decrease in GDP by almost 10%  [" over the [ambiguous] long term"] either but I don't put much faith in such predictions, especially from a conservative leaning group on the proposals of a democratic candidate.  Surely you can admit there's inherent bias there.

As for long term predictions, here's an interesting article on how wrong they typically are.  Of the 22 "chief market strategists" of the large investment banks, they collectively missed every recession and were wildly off overall. 
It's an even easier game saying "such and such a proposal will gain/loose x% of GDP when there's no way of testing what would ahve happened otherwise.

[Killerbrandt]

Finally my link worked!! The 2.5 was from CNN Money, but I would trust the Tax one more, so, my fault, I stand at the .005 percent. However, I would not want to see the possible decrease of GDP by almost 10 percent.

Yes, the link worked.  Thank you for sending it again. 
I don't want to see a decrease in GDP by almost 10%  [" over the [ambiguous] long term"] either but I don't put much faith in such predictions, especially from a conservative leaning group on the proposals of a democratic candidate.  Surely you can admit there's inherent bias there.

As for long term predictions, here's an interesting article on how wrong they typically are.  Of the 22 "chief market strategists" of the large investment banks, they collectively missed every recession and were wildly off overall. 
It's an even easier game saying "such and such a proposal will gain/loose x% of GDP when there's no way of testing what would ahve happened otherwise.

Oh yeah! I agree with you, it is hard to get real facts or truth from a conservative side analyzing a liberal idea and vice versa. I try to read both sides of the isle as much as possible to get my opinions, this one was just the most clear for me. However, I do agree with other things Bernie proposes like campaign funds and audits, but his fiscal policies scare me.

[Killerbrandt]

 I overall wish there was just a good balance like there seemed to be decades ago. It seemed like congress was able to agree on a lot more, but now it has just gotten so polar and extreme. It's extreme Republican views or extreme liberal views, and nothing else.

[onlykelsey]

Oh yeah! I agree with you, it is hard to get real facts or truth from a conservative side analyzing a liberal idea and vice versa. I try to read both sides of the isle as much as possible to get my opinions, this one was just the most clear for me. However, I do agree with other things Bernie proposes like campaign funds and audits, but his fiscal policies scare me.

I'm left of center myself, but even the left of center analyses of his income tax plan and single-payer plan have been pretty dark (http://www.vox.com/2016/1/17/10784528/bernie-sanders-single-payer-health-care and http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates).  I am with him on the financial transactions tax and campaign finance reform, though.

[Gin1984]

I overall wish there was just a good balance like there seemed to be decades ago. It seemed like congress was able to agree on a lot more, but now it has just gotten so polar and extreme. It's extreme Republican views or extreme liberal views, and nothing else.

Right... You do realize that many of these "liberal views" with the exception of a few civil rights are in line with the GOP of a few generations ago.  We have gone right, as a society, with the exception of gay rights.

[onlykelsey]

Right... You do realize that many of these "liberal views" with the exception of a few civil rights are in line with the GOP of a few generations ago.  We have gone right, as a society, with the exception of gay rights.

Agreed we've gone right as a society, but there really has been a change in the amount Americans trust the "other" side.  We seem to take politics much more personally than we used to, and we're isolating ourselves in to groups of people who agree with us. 

[Killerbrandt]

I overall wish there was just a good balance like there seemed to be decades ago. It seemed like congress was able to agree on a lot more, but now it has just gotten so polar and extreme. It's extreme Republican views or extreme liberal views, and nothing else.

Right... You do realize that many of these "liberal views" with the exception of a few civil rights are in line with the GOP of a few generations ago.  We have gone right, as a society, with the exception of gay rights.

Oh I have noticed, That is why I am actually an Independent. I like ideas on both sides of the isle. I am just more fiscally conservative.

[Gin1984]

I overall wish there was just a good balance like there seemed to be decades ago. It seemed like congress was able to agree on a lot more, but now it has just gotten so polar and extreme. It's extreme Republican views or extreme liberal views, and nothing else.

Right... You do realize that many of these "liberal views" with the exception of a few civil rights are in line with the GOP of a few generations ago.  We have gone right, as a society, with the exception of gay rights.

Oh I have noticed, That is why I am actually an Independent. I like ideas on both sides of the isle. I am just more fiscally conservative.

But then your statement is inaccurate.  We have not gone "extreme Republican views or extreme liberal views", everyone has gone right; with the exception of gays having rights.  And the GOP is not fiscally conservative otherwise they would pay for their expenditures.

[Killerbrandt]

Right... You do realize that many of these "liberal views" with the exception of a few civil rights are in line with the GOP of a few generations ago.  We have gone right, as a society, with the exception of gay rights.

Agreed we've gone right as a society, but there really has been a change in the amount Americans trust the "other" side.  We seem to take politics much more personally than we used to, and we're isolating ourselves in to groups of people who agree with us.

That does seem like the modern trend now. We are putting ourselves into groups and not budging on things

[Killerbrandt]

I overall wish there was just a good balance like there seemed to be decades ago. It seemed like congress was able to agree on a lot more, but now it has just gotten so polar and extreme. It's extreme Republican views or extreme liberal views, and nothing else.

Right... You do realize that many of these "liberal views" with the exception of a few civil rights are in line with the GOP of a few generations ago.  We have gone right, as a society, with the exception of gay rights.

Oh I have noticed, That is why I am actually an Independent. I like ideas on both sides of the isle. I am just more fiscally conservative.

But then your statement is inaccurate.  We have not gone "extreme Republican views or extreme liberal views", everyone has gone right; with the exception of gays having rights.  And the GOP is not fiscally conservative otherwise they would pay for their expenditures.

Yes, as a whole we have moved more right, but in recent times there seems to be a huge movement left. Socialist ideas are becoming more and more popular and the PC environment is insane! I can't even joke without someone getting offended and wanting to hang me. I mainly just feel that in recent times, we have started to separate into groups more with no real balance of ideas.

[Gin1984]

I overall wish there was just a good balance like there seemed to be decades ago. It seemed like congress was able to agree on a lot more, but now it has just gotten so polar and extreme. It's extreme Republican views or extreme liberal views, and nothing else.

Right... You do realize that many of these "liberal views" with the exception of a few civil rights are in line with the GOP of a few generations ago.  We have gone right, as a society, with the exception of gay rights.

Oh I have noticed, That is why I am actually an Independent. I like ideas on both sides of the isle. I am just more fiscally conservative.

But then your statement is inaccurate.  We have not gone "extreme Republican views or extreme liberal views", everyone has gone right; with the exception of gays having rights.  And the GOP is not fiscally conservative otherwise they would pay for their expenditures.

Yes, as a whole we have moved more right, but in recent times there seems to be a huge movement left. Socialist ideas are becoming more and more popular and the PC environment is insane! I can't even joke without someone getting offended and wanting to hang me. I mainly just feel that in recent times, we have started to separate into groups more with no real balance of ideas.

Maybe people are just more comfortable telling you when you are being offensive than it being a "PC environment".  Just off the top of my head I can think of a friend who was told "I did not think a girl could do such good work" and because he was the chair nothing happened and personally I've had multiple occasions to witness unPC behaviors, just among those with the power to not have a problem.  Maybe the problem is your jokes are not funny but before they had to laugh? 
And what socialist ideas, because every single one I can think of was from the GOP?

[Jack]

By thinking that we can just match their military budgets and be just as strong is ignorance, please prove to me that by cutting our military in half, we would be still the most powerful in the world and not risk our security?

Why? I never made that claim. I only claimed that if we cut the budget by half (from ~$600B to ~$300B) we'd still be spending at least as much as China (~$200B) and Russia (~$100B) combined. That's nothing more than arithmetic. You're the one who made claims about effectiveness, or lack thereof.

Moreover, I also never claimed we should cut the budget that drastically; only that we could while still spending more than other countries.

What I will claim is that there is some level of cuts that could be made -- more than 0%, but perhaps less than 50% -- that would save significant amounts of money without severely impacting national security.

I overall wish there was just a good balance like there seemed to be decades ago. It seemed like congress was able to agree on a lot more, but now it has just gotten so polar and extreme. It's extreme Republican views or extreme liberal views, and nothing else.

Look up the concept of the "Overton window." If you want balance, then you should appreciate people like Sanders trying to counterbalance extreme Republicans.

[Killerbrandt]

By thinking that we can just match their military budgets and be just as strong is ignorance, please prove to me that by cutting our military in half, we would be still the most powerful in the world and not risk our security?

Why? I never made that claim. I only claimed that if we cut the budget by half (from ~$600B to ~$300B) we'd still be spending at least as much as China (~$200B) and Russia (~$100B) combined. That's nothing more than arithmetic. You're the one who made claims about effectiveness, or lack thereof.

Moreover, I also never claimed we should cut the budget that drastically; only that we could while still spending more than other countries.

What I will claim is that there is some level of cuts that could be made -- more than 0%, but perhaps less than 50% -- that would save significant amounts of money without severely impacting national security.

I overall wish there was just a good balance like there seemed to be decades ago. It seemed like congress was able to agree on a lot more, but now it has just gotten so polar and extreme. It's extreme Republican views or extreme liberal views, and nothing else.

Look up the concept of the "Overton window." If you want balance, then you should appreciate people like Sanders trying to counterbalance extreme Republicans.

I am done talking military with you, but I do agree that people like Sanders and Trump can be seen as a positive. Because honestly, that seems to be the only way to get balance now. The right gets too strong and you need someone like Sanders to go extreme, but the same goes with the left. Because both are so extreme, maybe the politicians will be like, "DANG! lets get this compromise done so we don't end up like both of them".

[Gin1984]

By thinking that we can just match their military budgets and be just as strong is ignorance, please prove to me that by cutting our military in half, we would be still the most powerful in the world and not risk our security?

Why? I never made that claim. I only claimed that if we cut the budget by half (from ~$600B to ~$300B) we'd still be spending at least as much as China (~$200B) and Russia (~$100B) combined. That's nothing more than arithmetic. You're the one who made claims about effectiveness, or lack thereof.

Moreover, I also never claimed we should cut the budget that drastically; only that we could while still spending more than other countries.

What I will claim is that there is some level of cuts that could be made -- more than 0%, but perhaps less than 50% -- that would save significant amounts of money without severely impacting national security.

I overall wish there was just a good balance like there seemed to be decades ago. It seemed like congress was able to agree on a lot more, but now it has just gotten so polar and extreme. It's extreme Republican views or extreme liberal views, and nothing else.

Look up the concept of the "Overton window." If you want balance, then you should appreciate people like Sanders trying to counterbalance extreme Republicans.

I am done talking military with you, but I do agree that people like Sanders and Trump can be seen as a positive. Because honestly, that seems to be the only way to get balance now. The right gets too strong and you need someone like Sanders to go extreme, but the same goes with the left. Because both are so extreme, maybe the politicians will be like, "DANG! lets get this compromise done so we don't end up like both of them".

AGAIN, we have gone right the democrats are not extreme liberals.  They are last generations' GOP.  They have compromised all the way right. 

[Killerbrandt]

By thinking that we can just match their military budgets and be just as strong is ignorance, please prove to me that by cutting our military in half, we would be still the most powerful in the world and not risk our security?

Why? I never made that claim. I only claimed that if we cut the budget by half (from ~$600B to ~$300B) we'd still be spending at least as much as China (~$200B) and Russia (~$100B) combined. That's nothing more than arithmetic. You're the one who made claims about effectiveness, or lack thereof.

Moreover, I also never claimed we should cut the budget that drastically; only that we could while still spending more than other countries.

What I will claim is that there is some level of cuts that could be made -- more than 0%, but perhaps less than 50% -- that would save significant amounts of money without severely impacting national security.

I overall wish there was just a good balance like there seemed to be decades ago. It seemed like congress was able to agree on a lot more, but now it has just gotten so polar and extreme. It's extreme Republican views or extreme liberal views, and nothing else.

Look up the concept of the "Overton window." If you want balance, then you should appreciate people like Sanders trying to counterbalance extreme Republicans.

I am done talking military with you, but I do agree that people like Sanders and Trump can be seen as a positive. Because honestly, that seems to be the only way to get balance now. The right gets too strong and you need someone like Sanders to go extreme, but the same goes with the left. Because both are so extreme, maybe the politicians will be like, "DANG! lets get this compromise done so we don't end up like both of them".

AGAIN, we have gone right the democrats are not extreme liberals.  They are last generations' GOP.  They have compromised all the way right.

Tell me how they are last generation GOP? Liberals still want to tax us a ton (same as when taxes went up to 90 percent), grow welfare (started by a democrat), Decrease military (something liberals have always wanted like Carter). The only thing they are now more GOP like is that they support civil rights and not as racist.

[the_gastropod]

Sure, today it's the 1%, tomorrow it's the 5%, next week it's the 10%. Where do we cut off what is "acceptable" and "fair"?

There will always be a skinny part of the bell curve that has more, or earns more, than the majority. As long as they earned it legally, why is it my right to kick down their door and force them to give it to me at gunpoint? Or to have the government do it for me?

Who's kicking down doors and forcing anyone to give money at gunpoint? Do you understand how the progressive marginal tax system works? The 1% are treated no differently than the 5% or the 90%. This idea that the government treats the rich unfairly, and "robs them at gunpoint" is a narrative created by conservative media, and it's malarkey. Comparing the rich to jews in Nazi Germany is the zenith of offensive, and ignorance. Being rich is, ultimately, a choice. If it's that awful, they can choose to no longer be rich.

The progressive tax system has been around since the Roman Empire. It's nothing new, and acting like it's some evil plot by Bernie Sanders seems misinformed. I don't understand how raising the marginal tax rate on people making $230k+ by 4%, and and raising it 12% for people earning $10 million/year is so devastating. Please explain this to me. Prior to Reagan, the top marginal rate was 70%. Bernie's 52% on people making $10 Million / year is child's play in comparison.

As I understand it, your argument is "It's not fair that the rich have to pay more taxes than the middle class / poor". I posit that the rich benefit from the government far more than the middle class or poor do. Consider the military budget, for example, which accounts for over 20% of the U.S. budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a more expensive car, you pay more to insure it. Consider business owners who get to hire an educated workforce. Consider the police and fire services that protect the wealthy from massive losses. Consider FDIC and S&L bailouts. Consider the corporate subsidies to agricultural business, nuclear power plants, etc. Consider the tax breaks for homeowners. Consider public research done at publicly funded universities that can be used by corporations to create new products and services. Consider infrastructure spending, which allows the wealthy/business owners to fly, drive, and ship goods across the planet.

The rich have a moral responsibility to pay their fair share of taxes so that the next generation has as likely a shot at success as they had.

[Killerbrandt]

Sure, today it's the 1%, tomorrow it's the 5%, next week it's the 10%. Where do we cut off what is "acceptable" and "fair"?

There will always be a skinny part of the bell curve that has more, or earns more, than the majority. As long as they earned it legally, why is it my right to kick down their door and force them to give it to me at gunpoint? Or to have the government do it for me?

Who's kicking down doors and forcing anyone to give money at gunpoint? Do you understand how the progressive marginal tax system works? The 1% are treated no differently than the 5% or the 90%. This idea that the government treats the rich unfairly, and "robs them at gunpoint" is a narrative created by conservative media, and it's malarkey. Comparing the rich to jews in Nazi Germany is the zenith of offensive, and ignorance. Being rich is, ultimately, a choice. If it's that awful, they can choose to no longer be rich.

The progressive tax system has been around since the Roman Empire. It's nothing new, and acting like it's some evil plot by Bernie Sanders seems misinformed. I don't understand how raising the marginal tax rate on people making $230k+ by 4%, and and raising it 12% for people earning $10 million/year is so devastating. Please explain this to me. Prior to Reagan, the top marginal rate was 70%. Bernie's 52% on people making $10 Million / year is child's play in comparison.

As I understand it, your argument is "It's not fair that the rich have to pay more taxes than the middle class / poor". I posit that the rich benefit from the government far more than the middle class or poor do. Consider the military budget, for example, which accounts for over 20% of the U.S. budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a more expensive car, you pay more to insure it. Consider business owners who get to hire an educated workforce. Consider the police and fire services that protect the wealthy from massive losses. Consider FDIC and S&L bailouts. Consider the corporate subsidies to agricultural business, nuclear power plants, etc. Consider the tax breaks for homeowners. Consider public research done at publicly funded universities that can be used by corporations to create new products and services. Consider infrastructure spending, which allows the wealthy/business owners to fly, drive, and ship goods across the planet.

The rich have a moral responsibility to pay their fair share of taxes so that the next generation has as likely a shot at success as they had.

Ummm, Taxes are forced! The IRS will literally come after you if you avoid the taxes. So yes! it is like being forced at gunpoint to pay. Go ahead and try to not pay your taxes and update us on how that works. In addition, what is fair share? until everyone has a cell phone, cable, bacon paved drive ways? Already the "rich" are contributing the most to the US Revenue, while 43 percent of the nation as of 2013 pay no federal income tax. How is that fair share?

[Killerbrandt]

Sure, today it's the 1%, tomorrow it's the 5%, next week it's the 10%. Where do we cut off what is "acceptable" and "fair"?

There will always be a skinny part of the bell curve that has more, or earns more, than the majority. As long as they earned it legally, why is it my right to kick down their door and force them to give it to me at gunpoint? Or to have the government do it for me?

Who's kicking down doors and forcing anyone to give money at gunpoint? Do you understand how the progressive marginal tax system works? The 1% are treated no differently than the 5% or the 90%. This idea that the government treats the rich unfairly, and "robs them at gunpoint" is a narrative created by conservative media, and it's malarkey. Comparing the rich to jews in Nazi Germany is the zenith of offensive, and ignorance. Being rich is, ultimately, a choice. If it's that awful, they can choose to no longer be rich.

The progressive tax system has been around since the Roman Empire. It's nothing new, and acting like it's some evil plot by Bernie Sanders seems misinformed. I don't understand how raising the marginal tax rate on people making $230k+ by 4%, and and raising it 12% for people earning $10 million/year is so devastating. Please explain this to me. Prior to Reagan, the top marginal rate was 70%. Bernie's 52% on people making $10 Million / year is child's play in comparison.

As I understand it, your argument is "It's not fair that the rich have to pay more taxes than the middle class / poor". I posit that the rich benefit from the government far more than the middle class or poor do. Consider the military budget, for example, which accounts for over 20% of the U.S. budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a more expensive car, you pay more to insure it. Consider business owners who get to hire an educated workforce. Consider the police and fire services that protect the wealthy from massive losses. Consider FDIC and S&L bailouts. Consider the corporate subsidies to agricultural business, nuclear power plants, etc. Consider the tax breaks for homeowners. Consider public research done at publicly funded universities that can be used by corporations to create new products and services. Consider infrastructure spending, which allows the wealthy/business owners to fly, drive, and ship goods across the planet.

The rich have a moral responsibility to pay their fair share of taxes so that the next generation has as likely a shot at success as they had.

Also, what is "Moral Responsibility" in your definition, because what if I think it is my moral responsibility to take that money I earn and create even more jobs or to help my family and community as I please. Why is it a moral responsibility to give EVEN MORE to the government that has proven it cannot handle my money as well. Is it really considered moral anymore when you factor in force into the equation (taking it from me in taxes to do as you please).

[the_gastropod]

Ummm, Taxes are forced! The IRS will literally come after you if you avoid the taxes. So yes! it is like being forced at gunpoint to pay. Go ahead and try to not pay your taxes and update us on how that works. In addition, what is fair share? until everyone has a cell phone, cable, bacon paved drive ways? Already the "rich" are contributing the most to the US Revenue, while 43 percent of the nation as of 2013 pay no federal income tax. How is that fair share?

Ok, so are we arguing that taxes should not be necessary? Please state your point.

More than 45 million people in the U.S. live in poverty. Meanwhile, 95% of income gains since 2008 have gone to the top 1%. I don't think the rich are currently paying their fair share. The 43% of Americans that don't pay a federal income tax do pay taxes! They pay sales taxes, payroll tax, property taxes, etc.

[Jack]

Tell me how they are last generation GOP? Liberals still want to tax us a ton (same as when taxes went up to 90 percent)

No, less than when taxes were 90 percent -- which, by the way, was during the Eisenhower (Republican) administration. They started getting lowered during Kennedy's (Democrat) term.

(And don't you dare claim you object to them being raised to pay for WWII, Mr. DoD Analyst! The point is, Eisenhower is the one who kept them high during relative peacetime -- Korea and Vietnam were vastly cheaper than WWII.)

[Killerbrandt]

Ummm, Taxes are forced! The IRS will literally come after you if you avoid the taxes. So yes! it is like being forced at gunpoint to pay. Go ahead and try to not pay your taxes and update us on how that works. In addition, what is fair share? until everyone has a cell phone, cable, bacon paved drive ways? Already the "rich" are contributing the most to the US Revenue, while 43 percent of the nation as of 2013 pay no federal income tax. How is that fair share?

Ok, so are we arguing that taxes should not be necessary? Please state your point.

More than 45 million people in the U.S. live in poverty. Meanwhile, 95% of income gains since 2008 have gone to the top 1%. I don't think the rich are currently paying their fair share. The 43% of Americans that don't pay a federal income tax do pay taxes! They pay sales taxes, payroll tax, property taxes, etc.

Never said it was not necessary, I just said pay MORE in taxes.

Also, by you saying they pay taxes in Sales, ect.., then why is it fair to only tax the "rich" federal income tax and all those other taxes as well? Also you do know the 1 percent is fluid, it changes all the time, so maybe tomorrow you figure out an invention and move up to the one percent, are you now immoral and evil just because you suddenly gained a lot of money? What if all that money gained is invested in the market or going towards new research? which most likely it is, so its already creating more jobs and new businesses. Why is it so immoral to earn money? and moral to force it from people's pockets? 

[onlykelsey]

Also, by you saying they pay taxes in Sales, ect.., then why is it fair to only tax the "rich" federal income tax and all those other taxes as well? Also you do know the 1 percent is fluid, it changes all the time, so maybe tomorrow you figure out an invention and move up to the one percent, are you now immoral and evil just because you suddenly gained a lot of money? What if all that money gained is invested in the market or going towards new research? which most likely it is, so its already creating more jobs and new businesses. Why is it so immoral to earn money? and moral to force it from people's pockets?

Putting aside morality for a moment, can you point me to a society where the government didn't use force to exact taxation?

[Telecaster]

Also, I'm opposed to Social Security and Medicare. I recognize that's an extreme view in today's political world, but the only reason they exist is because working people are too dumb to save enough for their older years. If Americans were good savers, we wouldn't need the programs.

Aesop's fable of the Ant and the Grasshopper has survived for 2,500 years because it rings of truth.  Some people are savers, some people are spenders.  That is the way it has always been, no doubt always will be.  No surprise that most people here are the Ants.   Blaming "dumb Americans" for the human condition is more than a little bit naive, in my view.   

But I have zero desire to live, and in fact would not live, in society that places so little value on human suffering that it refuses to take care of the old and sick.  Especially when the costs of SS and Medicare are so trivial.   I want no part of a society like that, virtually no on does.   You're right.  Your views are extreme. 

Fact is, humans and our human ancestors have always worked cooperatively, going back 500,000 years.   Hunter gather populations (such that there still are) always share food with members of the group that don't have any.  Our closest relatives, chimpanzees, almost never do.   Working and sharing together is not a weakness.  It is is what makes us human.   I find it exhilarating.   





 

[Jeremy E.]

Sure, today it's the 1%, tomorrow it's the 5%, next week it's the 10%. Where do we cut off what is "acceptable" and "fair"?

There will always be a skinny part of the bell curve that has more, or earns more, than the majority. As long as they earned it legally, why is it my right to kick down their door and force them to give it to me at gunpoint? Or to have the government do it for me?

Who's kicking down doors and forcing anyone to give money at gunpoint? Do you understand how the progressive marginal tax system works? The 1% are treated no differently than the 5% or the 90%. This idea that the government treats the rich unfairly, and "robs them at gunpoint" is a narrative created by conservative media, and it's malarkey. Comparing the rich to jews in Nazi Germany is the zenith of offensive, and ignorance. Being rich is, ultimately, a choice. If it's that awful, they can choose to no longer be rich.

The progressive tax system has been around since the Roman Empire. It's nothing new, and acting like it's some evil plot by Bernie Sanders seems misinformed. I don't understand how raising the marginal tax rate on people making $230k+ by 4%, and and raising it 12% for people earning $10 million/year is so devastating. Please explain this to me. Prior to Reagan, the top marginal rate was 70%. Bernie's 52% on people making $10 Million / year is child's play in comparison.

As I understand it, your argument is "It's not fair that the rich have to pay more taxes than the middle class / poor". I posit that the rich benefit from the government far more than the middle class or poor do. Consider the military budget, for example, which accounts for over 20% of the U.S. budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a more expensive car, you pay more to insure it. Consider business owners who get to hire an educated workforce. Consider the police and fire services that protect the wealthy from massive losses. Consider FDIC and S&L bailouts. Consider the corporate subsidies to agricultural business, nuclear power plants, etc. Consider the tax breaks for homeowners. Consider public research done at publicly funded universities that can be used by corporations to create new products and services. Consider infrastructure spending, which allows the wealthy/business owners to fly, drive, and ship goods across the planet.

The rich have a moral responsibility to pay their fair share of taxes so that the next generation has as likely a shot at success as they had.

Also, what is "Moral Responsibility" in your definition, because what if I think it is my moral responsibility to take that money I earn and create even more jobs or to help my family and community as I please. Why is it a moral responsibility to give EVEN MORE to the government that has proven it cannot handle my money as well. Is it really considered moral anymore when you factor in force into the equation (taking it from me in taxes to do as you please).

paying taxes helps create jobs and help the community as well as all United States citizens, you are not forced to pay taxes, no one is forcing you to work or live in the United States. Every political party will tax you. This isn't a debate about taxes, but Trump, Bernie, and their policies. Trump says he will expand the military, build a wall(lets be honest mexico won't pay for the wall), deport millions of people, and many other things, these all cost money, regardless of whether or not he increases our taxes, we'll have to pay for them. Sanders wants free college, free healthcare, and we'll have to pay for these as well.