Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Honestly, people deserve to keep the majority of the money they earn.  I really don't care if it's more beneficial to society to take more of rich people's money.  It's still their money, and frankly, many of them are superior to the losers who get women's studies degrees, smoke pot all day, and then whine about their minimum wage job.  Taxing high incomes more is everything I hate about the left - they want to give it all to the illegals and to Democratic voting blocs, and to successful people they throw up a big middle finger and say, we want to give it to losers.  Frankly, if you're intelligent and determined enough to become a petroleum engineer, actuary, or whatever and command a high income, then I happen to believe that you shouldn't pay more than 50% of your income to the government just because Uncle Sam thinks that it would be better to encourage "better social outcomes."  

And look, I understand that not everyone in poverty is in it because they deserved it, but penalizing rich people because of other people's choice to do drugs, not take their education seriously, etc. is flat-out wrong.

Aww. Someone who believes their success is based on "merit" and inherent superiority. That's cute.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Taxing high incomes more is everything I hate about the left - they want to give it all to the illegals, to the Muslims, and to successful people they throw up a big middle finger and say, we want to give it to losers.

(And my point about Muslims was just that liberals care about not offending Muslim sympathies - refusing to even call it radical Islamic terrorism - yet they certainly don't care about outright stealing hordes of money from successful people for no other reason than "fairness.")

You do realize - given your demographic profile and the, uh, somewhat fragile state of mind demonstrated by your posting history -  that you represent more of a "terror" threat than all but an almost negligibly small share of American Muslims?

I mean, I enjoy trolling message boards (yes, even the fundie segment had a good bit of trolling in it), but it's not like I say a word of this stuff outside of it, so whatever.  That's part of my shtick is to go a bit overboard, I'll admit  My main point was that I oppose raising taxes on 6-figure incomes to redistribute it more to those in lower rungs and that I do favor encouraging success.

First, let's stop equating wealth with success.

Second, "encouraging success," if we are defining success your way, requires giving people the tools they need to succeed. Most of those tools come in the form of policies and programs that I expect you would reject as "special treatment." These programs require funding.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Are people on here seriously trying to say that the vast majority of rich people have gotten there through their own efforts and merits?

You gotta be kidding me.

70% of billionaires in this country are self-made. A majority of billionaires grew up in poor or middle-class circumstances.

"Self-made" does not always involve effort and merit. Good on them for capitalizing on the special opportunities they were given to work hard and rise out of their social milieu, but not everyone is afforded those same special opportunities. I would be curious to know the breakdown between "poor" and "middle-class" origins (and indeed the definitions of both) in the example you provide. There are people who start in life far worse than that, and if they find themselves in the double-jeopardy situation of also having dark skin or coming from a depressed neighbourhood, well... things are even harder.

North American social systems and institutions, from universities to hospitals, are sites of social performance, and in these playing fields what may look like getting ahead based on merit really involves invisible helping hands that privilege certain kinds of people. The odds that Laquisha Jackson makes it to college and then graduates into a stable job are a lot slimmer than the odds of William Fairchild from Bridgeport, Connecticut doing the same. One faces roadblocks every step of the way; the other has the gates held open for him throughout the whole journey. How many of those billionaires started off as black kids from Harlem?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Taxing high incomes more is everything I hate about the left - they want to give it all to the illegals, to the Muslims, and to successful people they throw up a big middle finger and say, we want to give it to losers.

(And my point about Muslims was just that liberals care about not offending Muslim sympathies - refusing to even call it radical Islamic terrorism - yet they certainly don't care about outright stealing hordes of money from successful people for no other reason than "fairness.")

You do realize - given your demographic profile and the, uh, somewhat fragile state of mind demonstrated by your posting history -  that you represent more of a "terror" threat than all but an almost negligibly small share of American Muslims?

I mean, I enjoy trolling message boards (yes, even the fundie segment had a good bit of trolling in it), but it's not like I say a word of this stuff outside of it, so whatever.  That's part of my shtick is to go a bit overboard, I'll admit  My main point was that I oppose raising taxes on 6-figure incomes to redistribute it more to those in lower rungs and that I do favor encouraging success.

First, let's stop equating wealth with success.

Second, "encouraging success," if we are defining success your way, requires giving people the tools they need to succeed. Most of those tools come in the form of policies and programs that I expect you would reject as "special treatment." These programs require funding.

I have no issue with job-training programs, subsidized tuition, etc.  All I'm saying is that the tax code to fund such programs should be relatively flat, except perhaps with some progressivism once we get to 1 million dollar plus incomes.

Raising the revenues necessary to fund the programs you suggest requires the tax brackets and tax rates to at least remain similar to what they are now. Flattening everything would mean putting the burden on people who are less able to afford it, which would basically neutralize the effects of the training programs and tuition subsidies in the first place.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Taxing high incomes more is everything I hate about the left - they want to give it all to the illegals, to the Muslims, and to successful people they throw up a big middle finger and say, we want to give it to losers.

(And my point about Muslims was just that liberals care about not offending Muslim sympathies - refusing to even call it radical Islamic terrorism - yet they certainly don't care about outright stealing hordes of money from successful people for no other reason than "fairness.")

You do realize - given your demographic profile and the, uh, somewhat fragile state of mind demonstrated by your posting history -  that you represent more of a "terror" threat than all but an almost negligibly small share of American Muslims?

I mean, I enjoy trolling message boards (yes, even the fundie segment had a good bit of trolling in it), but it's not like I say a word of this stuff outside of it, so whatever.  That's part of my shtick is to go a bit overboard, I'll admit  My main point was that I oppose raising taxes on 6-figure incomes to redistribute it more to those in lower rungs and that I do favor encouraging success.

First, let's stop equating wealth with success.

Second, "encouraging success," if we are defining success your way, requires giving people the tools they need to succeed. Most of those tools come in the form of policies and programs that I expect you would reject as "special treatment." These programs require funding.

I have no issue with job-training programs, subsidized tuition, etc.  All I'm saying is that the tax code to fund such programs should be relatively flat, except perhaps with some progressivism once we get to 1 million dollar plus incomes.

Raising the revenues necessary to fund the programs you suggest requires the tax brackets and tax rates to at least remain similar to what they are now. Flattening everything would mean putting the burden on people who are less able to afford it, which would basically neutralize the effects of the training programs and tuition subsidies in the first place.

I suppose only applying a flat rate above a certain "subsistence" income of say, 20-30,000 dollars might be the solution to that.  I suppose the problem then would be increased taxes on the middle class; in that case, some pretty progressive taxation on capital gains and 10 million+ in income could be utilized.  Of course, spending could also be cut elsewhere in the budget to pay for more job-training and subsidized tuition; I'd probably look to entitlement reform to help recoup some costs.

So the solution involves a poor black single mother having to choose between job training for her kid or healthcare under Medicaid? Christ.