They dodge their taxes and are currently the ones responsible for a "cash problem" the gvt has.

What makes you think more taxes would help if they're dodged? Anyhow, it's fine to close loopholes and stuff like that, that I'm for, more or less.

theres nothing wrong with a wealth gap if ppls standard of living goes up

why do poor care how rich the rich r if the poor are living good

however this isnt the case in the usa

corporations dodge taxes cus of how ridiculous the tax system is

why should mcdonalds pay taxes on money made from the united kingdom to the usa?

the usa is no longer competitive with its taxation system. this is a globalized economy. if u dont compete then u get ur ass handed to u by other countries

Edited 5/14/2016 22:58:48

Let's see what the US government's assets are:

CNN
US Military
Trillions of dollars
The entire public education system
The infrastructure of the US
A third of the land in America

Koch Brothers:

Lots of companies
Billions of dollars

And spending on elections have pretty much been proven to be less effective, it's more exposure, which is mostly controlled by the Democrats, Republicans and US government. If it was just Koch money, we'd have had a Libertarian candidate win long ago. You know, the guys who want to neuter the government and keep folk like Obomber from killing thousands and supporting awful folk like King Solmon.

Alright Japan, let's cap it at one billion.

The richest group in the US:
The government. They have to give 99% of their money up , maybe burn some too to deflate it, dismantle their military and I guess no more social programs either(they couldn't fund it anyways). Maybe they should donate to their victims (folk around the world who have been attacked, bombed, kidnapped and etc) too.

thanks for pointing the obv sherlock

the use of money is diluted in presidential elections. why? cus there's more free media covering the general election. this is why the koch bros are shifting their money to lesser known senate races. why? cus the general is unpredictable. its better to use congress to block the future president's objectives and put it in line

the use of money as a means of getting ur canddiate elected works when no one is paying attention. senate seats, house of reps, governor, u name it. u get to buy all the coverage and its all favorable for ur candidate.

this isnt the case with a general election. everyone is focused on it

the american people do not want libertarians.

they should b regarded as enemies of da state. if left unchecked they will get power and damage da world economy

just take a look at alan greenspan and how he ran the federal reserve

the libertarians must b stopped

Edited 5/14/2016 23:15:38

Imperator, the problem isn't the top 1% or top 10%, in my opinion they're not the big problem. The problem is the top 0.1%, or even 0.01% as well as corporations. They dodge their taxes and are currently the ones responsible for a "cash problem" the gvt has.

These are harder to find statistics for, so I'm just going to do some extrapolation if that's okay with you.

464,682*3.19 Million = 1.48 Trillion

^that's the income of the top 1%

Even if we're being generous and assume that 50% of the income of the top 1% is concentrated in the top 0.1%, This still only comes out to about 740 billion dollars a year in income.

Even if bernie can get 100% of this money, which let's face it isn't gonna happen while these people are alive, but let's assume he has them assassinated and replaces them with government wannabes who are willing to hand over all the money. This is only 7.4 trillion dollars over ten years, which not to be rude or anything, leaves a 25 Trillion dollar hole in bernies plan.

EDIT: Forgot about the income tax that we currently get, 2 Trillion dollars. This brings the hole all the way down to 23 trillion dollars!

Edited 5/14/2016 23:19:51

thats why u implement CUTS

like the MILITARY

lot of inefficencies in military spending

also the us economy isnt like regular ol ppl

because of our military strength and financial power we can hold deficits indefinitely

we rlly havent had a issue with our deficits

Edited 5/14/2016 23:21:35

Okay, let's cut the military too. That adds another 600 billion dollars/year into bernies plan:

7.4 trillion from rich people, 2.3 trillion from everyone else, 6 billion dollars from cutting the military for ten years.

Huh. There are still 17 Trillion dollars missing :/

wat dont u get about my statement

we arent greece
we arent spain
and we sure as hell arent puerto rico

our budget doesn't have to be balanced. we can hold deficits indefinitely cus we r the big ol mighty usa

this is the reality of world

also another thing to consider about social programs is how the hell r the european countries paying 4 it

dont know about the other programs but a single payer system is pretty much taking all the insurance premiums that u normally would pay to ur insurance company and give it to the government and u pay less premiums. i believe bernie is raising the payroll tax across the board for everyone by 2.2% in order to pay for it as well

u should also throw in increasing estate tax and maybe even petrol tax in ur calculations

Edited 5/14/2016 23:28:34

Let's compromise.

We cut down social spending to zero, and military spending to zero. We cut the arms to King Sauron Von Babystabber fund and cut funding to infrastructure. We cut corporate subsidies to zero and politician wages to zero. And here's the best part, the poor get zero taxes and the rich get zero taxes, to compromise.

All in all, the government while only pulling in 0$ for the next ten years, will also only spend 0$ in the next ten years. All in favor say aye.

Seeing as we're already around 18 trillion dollars in debt (which is larger than our GDP by about 10%), I don't think it's such a great idea to go another 17 trillion into debt.

lolno

no one wants wat u want

ur a small little minority

@smedley

and imperator. the usa can take on more debt. we r strong enough to do. personal debt doesnt work like how countries do business with each other. the usa has always paid its debts due to inflation and printing mo money

and the world lets us do tht cus we r big nd strong

Edited 5/14/2016 23:31:24

Since you correctly stated that the research has been done by the Urban Institute, why not read their research directly, instead of the cited propaganda bias by the Cato institute. You would get a completely different opinion on the matter:

It is true that you can read:

But even though Sanders would raise taxes on nearly all households by a total of more than $15 trillion over the next decade, his plan still would add an additional $18 trillion (plus at least $3 trillion in interest) to the national debt over the period—an unprecedented increase in government borrowing.

But more importantly you can also read:

As a result of Sanders’s overall domestic policy agenda, the lowest income households would pay about $200 more in taxes on average in 2017, but receive about $10,000 more in benefits—almost triple their total adjusted gross income. . Middle-income households would pay an average of about $4,500 more in taxes and receive $13,000 more in government transfers, for a net benefit of about $8,500. By contrast, the highest income 5 percent of households would pay $130,000 more in taxes on average and receive about $19,000 in additional transfers, resulting in a net cost of $111,000.

Those massive taxbenefits for a low and middle income households would most likely stimulate the economy in themselves, since those low and middle income households would immediately use the gained social security to invest money for comsumption and expenditures they had to postpone for a long time during this current economic insecurity.

Assuming you are all members of low and middle class income families, I wonder why you vote against your own interests. Because some corporate controlled institutes and mass media propaganda machines influence your opinions accordingly maybe?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/sanderss-domestic-program-would-help-most-households-add-more-18-trillion-debt

Edited 5/14/2016 23:33:10

I wonder why you vote against your own interests.

cus ppl arent rational

Maybe it's because I am going for my own interests. I don't want to be drafted, bombed, shot by police, gaoled for a plant, told I'm not human or right for something I'm not in control of(the US government doesn't do this as much now , but still), have my house searched for no reason, and not have my income taken by a third to a half over my entire lifetime.

draft is politically no longer viable

obey the law to not get shot by cops

government aint bombing u

house get searched for what is probably a good reason

and if u dnt like taxes either get the hell out or convince others to hold ur view and have ppl who represent ur views

libertarians are about 10-11% of the country. increase ur numbers and maybe ur fantasy can be real after all

Edited 5/14/2016 23:47:42

That is exactly the profile of a rational bernie sanders voter you are describing.

-not drafted = Sanders is anti militaristic, voted against Iraq
-not bombed = less injust wars for corporate interests in foreign countries, means less funding for terror groups by the CIA, as well as less retaliation attempts, exactly Sanders policy
-not shot by police = Enhancing Civic rights, providing more social justice would lower the root cause for police violence
-goaled for a plant i dont understand, unless you mean getting criminalized for marihuana consumption = decriminalizing minor offenses is something Sanders stands for
-Have my house searched for no reason = enforcement of civic rights and liberties = Sanders
-not have my income taken by a third to a half over my entire lifetime = unless you belong to the very rich, Sanders again

Edited 5/14/2016 23:51:31

sanders has voted for wars 2

like bosnia

I wonder why you vote against your own interests.

I propose forcibly taking away all the money of the top 10% and redistributing it to the bottom 90%. Going by your logic that will mean that I will get 90% of the vote, since everyone votes for their own self interest.

Not everyone's short-sighted or selfish enough to only support the candidate that will benefit them most.

Perhaps they don't agree, on principle, that people who take the risks and work harder should have to support the welfare of others as well.

Sanders is not perfect, though.

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/145799-bernie-sanders-bad