Sen. Bernie Sanders - The War Against Working Families

Post Reply New Topic

It's nice to finally hear some truth in Washington. This is one of the best speeches I've heard in a long time. I just hope others will listen.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq1zpHF0J04[/youtube]

Isn't he a self-avowed socialist?

Also isn't the top 1% paying the majority of taxes. Additionally there aren't as many rich people as there used to be.

I like what he did on some of the transparency stuff, but he's way off his rocker on this. This is blatent class warfare.

Yes, although his notion of "socialism" is influenced by the skewed use of the term in American political discourse. He does not fit the historical definition of socialism.


The top 1% pays a large portion of taxes, but that is obviously because they control a large portion of the wealth. They actually pay considerably less than their fair share if you compare their share of the total national wealth to their share of the tax burden.


I'm not sure what you mean by this. The gap between rich and poor in America has grown dramatically in recent decades.


Is it not class warfare to systematically shift the tax burden from the rich to the middle class? Is it not class warfare to balance the budget off the backs of the poorest Americans while giving yet more tax breaks to the ultra-rich?

Don't small business owners make over $250k a year gross? The problem with "taxing the rich" mentality is that the people we want to make jobs are the people we're hiking taxes on.

They can't hire anyone if they don't have the money to employ them.

Learn how tax law works before you start complaining about it. The top marginal rate doesn't apply simply if a business has gross receipts over $250,000, or even if it nets $250,000. That tax rate is for personal income.

And right now, the rich pay a lower overall tax rate than the middle class. There is no amount of partisan rhetoric that can make a defense for that, so the right wing simply pretends that's not true.

They've been using their extra money for personal investment and hiring cheap labor in China and abroad. Because that is the profitable thing to do.

That's what the Bush Tax Cuts have provided thus far.

If they want stimulate job creation here, they need a better plan than just giving them extra money they use to just enrich themselves even more.

Remember, the rich are not hurting in these times. They are still quite well off despite the economic downturn.

And I guarantee you they don't spend their money at Walmart or any other place you and me shop at so they aren't benefiting those workers through spending either.

We need a better plan than just tax cuts for the wealthy.

@ Zara

That's large corporations not small businesses.

What they do is talk in raw numbers and try to scare people who'll never see that much money into thinking it's a significant sum. "oh wow, $1million in taxes!" without realizing that the person has another 8 million after that or realizing that pretty much anyone can live a very, very comfortable life taking in $100,000/yr.

Or that the marginal utility of additional personal income beyond about $60k/year is approximately 0 anyways, so the most rational tax policy (in terms of utility maximization) would be to have a 0% tax rate on income below $60,000, and fully fund the government by taxing people above that level at a steep rate.

(Not saying I'm in favor of such a radical and outrageous policy, but it is telling that I can make a much sounder economic argument for it than any right-winger could for their proposed policies)

Is it 60k? I know it's not that high compared to the gluttonous incomes that some people make. I put it at $100k just because that seemed to be able to include a good bit of luxury, too.

Above a threshold of about 50-60k (the point at which you can live a comfortable middle-class lifestyle) there is no correlation between material wealth and self-reported life satisfaction. It's just as your grandmother always told you: money can't buy happiness.

There's a war against working families, all right, but the people waging it are the ones who want to tax the families that work to support families on welfare that don't work.

Actually, most small businesses are incorporated under Subchapter S, so that tax rate is on both personal and corporate income for them. $250k a year is not that high for the top two employees of a business that employs, say, a couple of dozen employees.

Also, two doctors married to each other likely earn over $250k a year. It's just not that high an amount for a working family.


The billionaires that pay a lower rate than the middle class pay capital gains rather than income taxes, so they aren't affected by the top income tax rate.


And for a family of 2 with 3 kids, $60k a year comes out to $300k a year family income. So what was your point again?

so am i. so what of it? you use that term as an epithet, a curse. better that than a randy randian.



i doubt your first point. seriously. fox new propaganda notwithstanding. and you glossed-over the senator's point that there aren't as many rich people as there used to be precisely because those above merely rich have gotten enormously richer at the expense of everybody below them.



why is it that conservatives cry "CLASS WARFARE!" every time the lower classes pick themselves up off the ground after getting bashed by the rich rightist bullies, and defend themselves and their interests? when you pee on my leg then tell me it's raining, and then cry class warfare when i get angry at you, you are showing the same sort of chutzpah as a person who murders their parents and then cries "ORPHAN!" why do you hate your own class? do you seriously believe that you are going to be mr. moneybags one day yourself?

But that doesn't come out of the business's revenue. It comes out of the top earners' take-home pay, assuming they are taking home in excess of $250,000.


Yeah. So? Physicians are wealthy. They should be paying a commensurate tax rate.


You're kidding? "Working families" do not earn $250k. And yes, it is a very high amount.


Which is why we need more fundamental reform in our tax policy.


What the hell are you talking about? That's 50-60k household income, not per individual, and certainly not per child.

Waitwaitwait! So you're saying that 10 people sharing a 2 bedroom apartment each living on $6k a month will be just as happy as one person living on $60k in his own 2 bedroom apartment?

Clearly the welfare system should be revised to require recipients to live 10 people to a room! They'll all be so much happier!