Can someone explain to me why any of Bernies ideas won't work?

>>1180047
because they all imply that the rich (the people paying for all of this) will just be OK and stay here, not leave America and take their $$ with them.

His ideas are meme-worthy but any real economist laughs.

How on earth will he even tax off shore accounts when the us government can't even do that themselves

>>1180047

Republicans aren't exactly hopping with joy over working with Hillary either. Whatever x% of what Bernie can get will be better than whatever x% of Hillary can get. She's not a better candidate because she won't fight for anything.

>>1180056
You mean decorates

I mean I don't want to turn this into a political discussion on the business thread. From a economical standpoint why wouldn't his plans work besides the fact that the rich will just take their money and leave the US

>>1180047
>college for all
he is going all out, isnt he?

File: 1385615285701.png (328KB, 680x582px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 680x582px

>>1180047
>Wall Street Speculation Tax
this is a transnational tax on stock transactions. Bernie thinks he's doing something good to fight high frequency traders. What he won't tell you is that free trading in a market is essential to keep liquidity in that market. That last thing you ever want to do is try to force fewer transactions. This won't help anyone and it certainly won't help to fairly value assets on the market if the government is interfering in the free trade process that sets the value of assets.

>Closing carried interest loophole
Stop middle class home-buyers from getting tax benefit from own their homes? Is that seriously what this is? Do you want to crash the housing market? No we're not doing that

>Progressive estate tax on inheritances
So let me get this straight. My dad paid taxes his whole life and he has $80K in his savings account when he passes. He ALREADY PAID taxes no that money. My brother and I are his heirs so we split that money $40K each. We have to pay income tax on that so now it's about $25K each. But wait, there's a new Bernie inheritance tax now. You want to double-tax money that's already been taxed when my dead dad earned it, it was taxed a second time already as income when I inherited it and now you want some new progressive 3rd inheritance tax. Do I sound rich to you? Fuck off. Why do you need all this fucking tax? Oh to redo Obamacare from scratch right.

>Additional 0.2% payroll tax
There are several tax calculators online. Middle class folks will pay an extra approx $10K a year in taxes. No I won't pay it fuck you

>Medicare For All Health Care Plan Paid for by 6.2 percent income based health care premium paid by employers
>paid by employers
>paid by employers
>paid by employers
If you really believe the EMPLOYERS pay for this and not the EMPLOYEES then I suggest you retake economics friend. The additional cost is passed straight through to employees, you and me and the middle class

>>1180065

Isn't there a threshold on the estate tax? Something like over 1m?

In the picture it's saying over a few million dollars but I'm not sure if it's a lot lower than what he is saying though. I mean the fact that he doesn't understand the concept of free market trade already tells me he's a moron and just an extreme hippy wanting free shit. But how on earth do they plan on touching off shore accounts?

>>1180072
haven't looked into it but I don't have any other dying relatives

>>1180047
run the projections yourself. oh wait you probably can't bernout.

Work backwards. $4 per citizen will somehow pay for 100% of healthcare for 100% of the population. I call B/S.

Destroy the oil economy we've worked to build up for the last few decades. and destabilize employment for an entire decade of engineers and surveyors. Some how this will create revenue.

We can tax art now. hoo boy.

Hey more payroll tax that employees don't see.

Oh we're now gonna tax efficient accountable management.

people will simply accept alternative forms of compensation

Most people will simply stop trading in this manner, the market is extremely efficient. They will simply move to alternative markets or cease trading, they're not in the business of giving 300B to the government for no reason.
There might be what 10M traders across the whole country. You think they're all gonna take a 3000$ hit to pay for everyones college.

Taxing corporate offshore income
ya nope. They'll just all relocate. Fucking Burger King is a Canadian company now.

>>1180078
I'm not a Bernie supporter lol....

>>1180078
So obviously offshore accounts can be very sensitive when dealing with them. How can the US make it so they can tax something from those off shore accounts and still keep those businesses in the US even though they technically are located outside of the US

File: tanglol.jpg (118KB, 600x401px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 600x401px

>>1180090
you do it by taxing less
>tax holiday
give corporations a set period when they can repatriate offshore funds without tax penalty.

>Why would government do this?
Because companies use the opportunity to bring money back into the US. Instead of Apple keeping $10 bn equivalent USD in China maybe they move $5 bn USD back to the US and build some crazy giant glass offices that look like UFOs They spend that money IN the US on capital purchases paying sales tax and employees, paying payroll taxes. The money is back in the US economy, moving around, getting taxcucked like liberals want

>>1180104

I'll be cool with a tax holiday if I get one

Last time we had a tax holiday, it was under Bush and it didn't do squat to the economy.

File: laughing cammy.png (291KB, 540x672px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 540x672px

>>1180047
>socialism
>america

that's why

They won't work because they all assume no one will change their behaviour.

>>1180047
and he wants to cut our military budget which is over half of our spending. I see nothing wrong with this. Our military is already better than anyone elses. Sure the North Koreans and Chinese can march in formation but theyd get rekt in real combat. Should be able to maintain our military with a quarter or half of what the military budget is

>>1180054
>>1180058
I highly doubt rich that many rich people are going to want to leave. Maybe a few ultra wealthy billionaires but most people making 200k+ wouldnt be able to maintain that income in another country

>Taxing corporate offshore income
We already do this. It's easily avoided.

>Wall Street speculation tax
This is essentially a sales tax per transaction. It won't generate anywhere near the amount of projected revenue because trading volume will plummet as soon as its enacted. Trading in American-based exchanges might become too difficult and you'd see public companies flocking to Toronto and London. You'll also run into the same problem we see with health care where colleges will get fat off the government money and start blowing it on needless shit, resulting in a revenue shortfall that has to be made up by yet more taxes.

>Lifting the Social Security cap
This is do-able and necessary, although Social Security is in such awful shape that the money should be used to shore it up now rather than to expand benefits

>Additional .2% payroll tax
This isn't really something you want to do; the payroll tax is already a job-killer. Might as well just roll it into general tax increases.

>Closed carried-interest loophole
This is fine, although doesn't generate much money

>Close tax loopholes on estate sales and artwork
Also fine, also doesn't generate much money

>Increase estate tax
It's already 40%, what the fuck more do you want? Most of the "loopholes" associate with the estate tax aren't always loopholes (e.g. setting up a charitable foundation your estate is sometimes considered a loophole)

>End fossil fuel subsidies
Sure, but again, that's not that much money

>Socialized Medicine
I have no problem with this, it'd honestly be better for the country given how expensive health care is here versus how much it costs everywhere else. It's still asinine to make its funding so needlessly complex though. Roll it into general tax increases.

The Wall Street tax. They did that in Sweden and traders started trading on Londons market. Swedens economy suffered a lot and they removed the tax after 3 or 4 years later.

>>1180180
A lot if not most of military budget goes to research and prevention of diseases, as well as aid to other countries.

We certainly waste a fuckload on weapons and robots, and we can cut back on who we help, but it's not like we have better shit to spend that money on. Any government will mismanage money. There are very thorough studies done that make it pretty hard to believe anyone can efficiently distribute someone else's money to benefit someone else, especially on a large scale.
It's fine to maybe figure out healthcare at some base level even though fat people have screwed everyone else over. But college and other charity shit will cost more for everyone than ever before if they make it "free." Not to mention it would be straight forward to just stop working and get more out of life if you are living paycheck to paycheck.

>>1180183

Lots of Hedge Funds are moving to Puerto Rico and taking their 200K+ analysts with them. Also with all of these magical "loopholes" and "tax evasion" schemes, the top 10% contribute to 71% of tax revenue, while the poor take 40% from it.

Because he will go against capitalism, and thats the face of america and all the big corporations.

>>1180054
fucking good.

nouveau riche are to old nowadays.

we need a new era of billionaires and aristocrats.

ohh your lords and masters will leave.

are you really trying to scare me by saying my rich uncle will leave if benie gets in?

good riddance, guy is an asshole and severly out of touch with the work force.

even more he thinks he can get one over on us by studying the google analytics.

>>1180065
>0.2%
>10k

You clearly aren't good with the numbers

>>1180180
You clearly don't understand what it means to be the best.

All the militaries are innovating and striving to take us down to strike when we are weak. If they can ally to break us they will.

one of the only reasons we enjoy being at the forefront in money is because we have a military that can protect us constantly innovating newer more creative ways to disable the encroachment of others.

China is hacking us to hell.
Russia is posturing to take land people and resources
The middle east is sapping our money

You have to be twice as good as the next few guys combined to stay on top or they'll take you down Tanya Harding style

>End fossil fuel subsidies
>polluter welfare

>Close estate tax loopholes

>Wall street speculation tax
>College for all

Are Bernie supporters really this low information?

>>1180180
Our military is self sufficient and even sells weapons, meaning keeping the military around is a choice between profit and velocity of currency.

Regardless i am tired of morons complaining about military spending eith youtube leve arguments

>>1180078
>Destroy the oil economy we've worked to build up for the last few decades. and destabilize employment for an entire decade of engineers and surveyors. Some how this will create revenue.

How is putting coal oil and natural gas on a level free market playing field with renewable energy destroying oil?

I understand there are tax credits and subsidies for solar and wind power. I think the should be phased out given the drastic drop in the price of solar cells over the years.

I feel business taxes should be simplified and lowered across the board. A mom and pop operation or a startup should be on the same footing tax rate wise as a large corporation. The big dogs should not be able to work the tax system to destroy upstart competition and protect weak business ideas.

>>1180229
I would just like to point out that fat people really don't screw over the health care system; there have been some studies that show while they have higher per year medical cost, because they die sooner they end up with lower lifetime medical cost than non-obese people. The same ends up being true of smokers.

>>1180054
You're saying we'd get rid of the worst of the worst parasites on our economy?

>>1181199

lol wut

Green energy gets massive subsidies from the government.

The Obama administration even gave away 500 million to a green energy company that went bust.

File: EnergySubsidies.png (107KB, 678x370px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 678x370px

>>1181199
Renewables get massive subsidies in the US, especially when you figure in how little energy they produce.

File: Federal-Electric-Subsidies.png (29KB, 469x305px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 469x305px

This one is a bit older, but the situation hasn't changed that much. It should be noted that much of the supposed "subsidies & tax breaks" that oil & coal companies get is merely the standard depreciation & tax deductions that are applicable to any business.

>>1181341
He's not referring to conservative Republicans

>>1181439
Sort of like the big bank bailouts since 2009?

>>1181450

Reminder that the house and senate voted on that and both are a Democratic majority at the time

>Cost
>Revenue

If america is run like a business then why dont we just hire someone good with business instead of dealing with politicians?

>>1180047
I'll just tackle one of those cause I've been reading a lot about it.

Taxing offshore income isn't just hard, it's impossible without impending on those countries sovereignty. Some of them can be coerced with threats, but without military intervention, these countries don't have to tell anybody who has an account.

>>1180047
As far as the 6.2% healthcare tax paid by employers, it will further hurt this country's companies ability to compete globally. This country's workforce is already at a cost disadvantage compared to places like Korea and India. US engineering companies are already offshoring to places like India and Korea.

We've already lost blue collar manufacturing, now its time to lose white collar engineering.

Bernie seems genuine and all that, but just because he believes what he says doesn't mean he isn't an idiot.

>>1180072
Correct. That part of his post was inaccurate. Does not make Bernie's additional inheritance taxes a smart idea.

>>1180047
Or you could just do some actual research, like check out the report by the tax foundation on his plan. His plan is absolute shit. Stop regurgitating retarded memes and made up info graphs.

>>1181494
>cost
>revenue

>>1180047
>introduce massive new taxes on wealthy
>wealthy move to London

Why would they stay and be ass fucked by that old commie when there are a lot of very nice places which are dying to have them?

>>1181541
Wow, a conservative think tank doesn't like Bernie Sanders' ideas. Film at 11.

They also said Clinton's plan sucked, and Trumps. Allrighty then. Glad I did my actual research.

It still amazes me how vehement the anti-Sanders shit is around here. It's just these constant half-baked knee jerk reactions that come down from on high. I think you really consider these ideas your original ideas, but it's so obvious you're just repeating what you've been told to say.

He doesn't need to have the whole plan laid out to get started on some positive changes. Since when does any president have the whole thing mapped out ahead of time? We'll start with reinstating Glass-Steagall, how about that. It's all bullshit, all of the talking points I hear against Sanders are distorted, dismissive and simplistic. Truly the real here memes are the Bernie hating ones, and that's all they really amount to in many cases, is memes.

>>1180047
Because most of those "how he can afford it" are pure conjecture.

>>1180047

the wall street tax has been tried multiple times in the real world and doesnt work, at best he'd be sacrificing 40% of the stock market and all the tens of billions in capital gains tax we would have by leaving it alone for 10% of his projection

he also has a piece that most people have ignored for some reason where he's going to get rid of pass through llc's, so 1/3rd of all maerican businesses and probably 95% of small businesses do pass through llc's , its not some "big conglomerate loophole" its a well thought out piece of tax law - basically you pass through the earnings of your company to yourself and then get taxed on them per your income bracker - bernie would have you file as a c corp and pay 40% tax rate - hence most small businesses would simply close shop

otherwise its all around solid but those alone are like retard tier bad ideas

>>1181599
Actually clintons plan per them is revenue neutral, both cruz and trumps plans would add trillions to the national debt

bernies plan raises money but at the expense of growth and gdp - so it sort of just squeezes out a few dimes now and then in 5 years its bad

and i voted early for bernie - you need to look at his proposals objectively - you moan and whine about "anti bernie" sentiment on /biz/ but this is /biz/ not /feels/ - money talks bullshit walks

look at bernies proposals objectively, go look at multiple sources - maybe read both pro and anti bernie blogs and essays , otherwise you're just as guilty of circkle jerking as any conservative

>>1181599
It still amazes me how vehement the anti-capitalist shit is around here. It's just these constant half-baked knee jerk reactions that come down from on high. I think you really consider these ideas your original ideas, but it's so obvious you're just repeating what you've been told to say.

How's Uni going?

>>1181637
> the wall street tax has been tried multiple times in the real world and doesnt work

When has it been tried and how did it work or not work? I can't even make sense of the rest of this sentence.

>he also has a piece that most people have ignored for some reason where he's going to get rid of pass through llc's, so 1/3rd of all maerican businesses and probably 95% of small businesses do pass through llc's , its not some "big conglomerate loophole" its a well thought out piece of tax law - basically you pass through the earnings of your company to yourself and then get taxed on them per your income bracker - bernie would have you file as a c corp and pay 40% tax rate - hence most small businesses would simply close shop

I can't find a single reference to this anywhere, do you happen to have a link? I'm actually really curious where your opinions come from, would you mind sharing where you get these ideas?

>>1180047
financial transaction tax is dumb, the projections for revenue from it are dumb too and based on the assumption trade volume, liquidity remains the same... in reality liquidity will dry up, banks will pay more for overnight funding and much less revenue will be generated than predicted. US markets would become more volatile and a bunch of people who had nothing to do with the financial crisis will be punished.

>>1180065
>We have to pay income tax on that so now it's about $25K each.

eh? you have to pay income tax on inheritance? Isn't inheritance taxed separately via inheritance taxes above a certain threshold?

>>1181640
Look at the responses in this thread, it's overwhelmingly one sided, and it always is. It's not just biz either, it's basically 4chan and who knows where else.

I do look at things from multiple angles, and I've been around long enough to get real tired of crooks and criminals running the show. Sander's is not a crook, he's not one of the insiders. That alone goes very far in my book. Whether or not he has all the details ironed out is not as important. He's been in politics for 35 years, fighting some very unpopular (to the insiders) battles, consistently. If you supported him, then awesome. Why change your stance and start spreading the propaganda of the elite?

That's all this website is: propaganda for the elite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation

Check out their board of directors, check out where they get their funding. How can you even reference such an entity as a credible source? I know to research, and I know how to discern truth from b.s. thank you very much. I'm just wondering if you really do. Well do you?

>>1181667
>Sander's is not a crook, he's not one of the insiders.
>He's been in politics for 35 years

Just kill yourself anon.

>>1181679
Hard to believe, I know. But it's the truth. Does it frighten you, is that why you immediately attack? No need to feel threatened by the truth, anon. It's ok to have hope that things can turn around.

>>1181667

>Why don't all these dumb redneck conservashits just agree with me because obviously they're just dumb and us liberals are the smart ones. It's 2016, come on

>>1181686
It frightens me that you can read that and still think he's not an insider.

Is it only at 4 fucking decades one becomes an insider?

Are you really this fucking retarded?

How is that possible?

Did you brink bleach as a child?

Are you still a child?

Are you drinking beach right now?

>>1181688
>>1181689

Weak. Neither one of these posts even merits a response.

>>1181691

>Expecting serious replies when your own arguments is nothing more than "IT'S 2016 COME ON"

>>1181696
I never said that, nor did imply it by anything that I said. If I did, then go ahead and point it out. You're just making shit up and then saying I said it. As if you really know where I'm coming from. Hey, if that's the best you got, anon, well then god bless you.

>>1181710
Anon I would like to reiterate the very viable option of suicide.

I feel it is my public duty.

>>1181710
You sir are fucking retarded. I second this dudes motion >>1181714

>>1181450
reminder that the banks repaid their bailout plus interest

So anyhow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

Here's an article about Bernie Sanders, from wikipedia. You should read it. It tells the story of one of the rare good guys in politics.

>>1181725
>Socialist
>Good guy
You're a special kind of stupid

>>1180047
>college for all
>75bil
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
20million students expected to attend college in 2015.
>75bil/20mil = $3,750 per student school year
this some kind of joke? try 3-10 times this per year per student, and the number of students will double once its free and required to get a minimum pay job.

>>1181727

Actually, Bernie is not a socialist, he's a full blown communist.

The president of Denmark even asked him to stop referencing then when he talked about his "socialism"

I'd link it, but on mobile. Just look it up if you don't believe it.

Even socialist countries don't do the things that he is suggesting the US do.

I hope that anyone who is reading along notices that all my opponents are bringing any more is the most rudimentary personal insults. It's almost like, when their b.s. is actually challenged, they suddenly find they have nothing left to bring to the table but the weakest collection of misses possible.

>>1181736
Your opponents brought articles/webpages to the table and solid arguments etc. You devolved into name calling and assumptions. You are a faggot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrsI0Sw2hq8

Here's a video of Sanders, speaking before the U.S. Senate 5 years ago, predicting the Panama situation currently in the news. He opposed the trade agreement that facilitated these hidden offshore accounts.

>>1181738
So if anyone doubts the verity of my statements, then let this post right here be a case in point.

As far as you can go back and look at the thread, I haven't called anyone stupid, retarded, a faggot, or told them to kill themselves.

>>1181751
Ok, if you want reasonable discourse, I'll indulge you.
Regarding Bernie's Transaction Tax, I'll assume you understand that there is no distinction made on who this tax applies to, thus, it would affect day traders as well as corporate entities.
Do you have a valid argument why this should be so? (other than bias "Those people deserve it", or minimization "That's not much of a tax")

>>1181772
I don't really know, and that's why I'm not asserting that it should be the same across the board, so it's kind of a straw man. I'm also not claiming that everything Bernie shits out is gold. However, the truth is that it IS a very small cut. .005 on each dollar for stocks, and .001 for bonds.

Source: http://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/466465333/sanders-favors-a-speculation-tax-on-big-wall-street-firms-what-is-that

>>1181792
>it IS a very small cut
A very small cut on what? Can you give an example?
I figured.
You don't know how the tax works, you just took your candidate's word for it.
Correct?

>>1181792
from the article

>"Under the Sanders proposal, trades would be taxed at a rate of 0.5 percent for stocks and 0.1 percent for bonds. A stock trade of $1,000 would thus incur a cost of $5"

yeah nope not okay it's government theft.
Here's the real issue with Sanders supporters:
>"Wall Street got a big boost when U.S. taxpayers bailed out some of the largest financial institutions in 2008. Now it's time for Wall Street to return the favor."
Fucking grow up. Wall Street banks paid back the bailout plus interest. Should lawmakers have sent more people to jail back then? Yes, definitely. But they didn't. And where was our non-insider fuckface candidate Bernie Sanders then? Oh, he WAS one of the lawmakers. Okay yeah. He's an outsider. Reviewed the thread carefully and haven't seen an answer to that point still btw

So therefore, the "simple day trader, just tryin to make an honest living" or whoever you might think would be negatively impacted, wouldn't be paying very much.

Once again I don't think all his policies are perfect, or perfectly worked out, but whose are? Also, they're not going let him win, let's be real, even if he would have otherwise won. And even if he were to be president, he would only get through a small fraction of what he's proposing, but none of those are good reasons not to support the guy, for me. He's got the right idea, and once again he's not a crook, he's not on the take, while all the rest of them are.

>>1181799
"stock trades" and "bond trades". Am I missing something? Why don't you enlighten me then about how it works. I'm open to reason.

>>1181801
I don't understand your point. Is it that Sanders should have been able to put them all in jail himself? He has been fighting the kind of corruption that Wall Street banks have come to represent, all long.

>>1181807
>Am I missing something?
I guess you are. I asked you for an example, dollars and cents, of how this proposed tax works.
I also gave you the opportunity to admit you don't understand the mechanics of it.
Since you have given neither, what do you want me to assume here?
Quoting "5% on stocks" doesn't prove either, by the way.

>>1181811
Ok, I thought it was implied when I asked you for your take on it that I was admitting I didn't know everything about how it works. Like I said, I'm open to input. You seem to be signifying that you know something I don't, so what is it? What is your major issue with the proposed tax, and why? Go ahead, I'm all ears.

>>1181818
Ok, in a nutshell, the tax is based on the total value of a trade (buy $1000, sell $1000 = $2000 taxed), not its profit.
This means that the tax can not only eclipse any profit on a trade (if any), it will also be applied against trades that lose money (for the same amount).
Clearer?

File: land of the free.png (12KB, 885x563px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 885x563px

>>1180058
Implementing tax is bad for both the producer and consumer as it artificially inflates the price for consumers and decreases revenue for business.

>>1181830
Yeah, I did understand that, and one of the points of the tax is that it reduces the volume of extremely marginal trades, which if you make a trade of a million dollars, buy or sell, and a $500 tax eats up all your profits.. then I don't know what to say to you. The derivatives tax would be even less, $50 on a million. Is that going to break some poor trader? Is it going to wreck the economy? It seems to me like the only ones who would be paying a lot would be the big corporate entities. Is it perfect? Would it need tweaking? Probably, yeah.

Seems to me that the pros still outweigh the cons.

>>1181852
oops , miscalculated heh..

$5000 on a million. $500 for derivatives. My stance is unchanged though.

>>1181857
>My stance is unchanged though.
Of course it is.
Like I said, you'd pick one position or the other.
"Those people deserve it", in your case.
Thanks for playing straight, though.
I appreciate it.

>>1181832
>i took first year economics and now am the master of the market

>>1181864
Nah, I never asserted that I had a valid argument as to why the proposed tax should make no distinction as to who it applies to. Those are your words. Maybe it should. That does not invalidate the premise, though. That's what I AM saying.

It seems like you're just playing games, though. Trying to trap me with words into taking a position that's easily attacked. Something like that.

You made that shit up, and then said I said it.

>>1181869
did you not know that? The only reason my statement would solicit that response is if you felt threatened

>took first year psychology too

>>1181871
>I never asserted that I had a valid argument
I hope not.
But you are arguing (in a vague way, i.e. "it's not so much tax", "don't know what to tell ya") that people in business should pay (via this proposal) tax on their losses.
I'm just curious as to why you would think any sector of business would accept this as reasonable, or fair?

>>1181879
>I never asserted that I had a valid argument
Cute. But that's not all I said, is it?

>But you are arguing that people in business should pay (via this proposal) tax on their losses.

I don't really know about should or shouldn't here. Under the proposed tax, the way things are commonly done might have to be adjusted somewhat, to take it into account.

>I'm just curious as to why you would think any sector of business would accept this as reasonable, or fair?

Doesn't apply to any sector of business, just stock trading business, and I don't expect that they would accept it as reasonable or fair.

>>1181886
>Under the proposed tax, the way things are commonly done might have to be adjusted somewhat, to take it into account
Are you sure you don't work for his campaign?
Because that's a masterwork of nothing-speak.

>>1181886
>just stock trading business
I get it.
You see no issue with applying this standard unevenly. Like I said, "They deserve it", right?

>>1181894
I'm taking into account what you're saying, but you're not really listening to me. You're just continuing with your narrative. What I would like to know is if we can have a conversation without you constantly trying to put words in my mouth at every turn. Do you think that might be possible?

It's not a moral judgement for me, it's not about punishment, it's just what needs to be done. The shit's out of control and it needs to be reigned in. The concentration of wealth in the top 1% is at record levels and the system is rigged to keep it that way. It's broken, it's not working the way it is. Some correction of that needs to happen, and Bernie Sander's long standing policies are a push in that direction. They're not perfect, polished gems, they're just in the general direction of the right idea, and I'll take what I can get. Compared to the other options.. jesus.

>>1181909
>I'm taking into account what you're saying
No, I don't really think you are.

>It's not a moral judgement for me, it's not about punishment, it's just what needs to be done
>The concentration of wealth in the top 1% is at record levels
>Some correction of that needs to happen

This is all great. But is has nothing to do with what I first asked >>1181772
The law doesn't need to attack the guy trading at home to accomplish any of what you stated, does it?
What was your answer?
>I never asserted that I had a valid argument as to why the proposed tax should make no distinction as to who it applies to

>>1181913
>No, I don't really think you are.

Well I'm trying to. You're certainly being vague about what you're actually saying, but I'm reading between the lines, and it does affect my 'big picture', believe it or not.

>What was your answer?
I thought it was pretty clear that I have been saying all along that it doesn't have to attack the guy trading at home.

So there you go. No.

>>1181731
>the number of students will double once its free

and who is going to take in these students? its not like colleges even accept everyone who applies.

if more people want to go to college because its free that just means more rejection letters

>>1181919
Well, then maybe you can help me understand where you're coming from.
On the one hand, you seem to agree that the proposal in question doesn't have to be designed to/affect everyone.
But on the other, you seem to be arguing that it's somehow "necessary". Or at the very least, that Sanders is a good guy with the right ideas, so fuck it if this one is flawed.
Whether you support Sanders or not, based on what we've covered, you'd have to agree that the only traders who could are congenital idiots.

>>1181925
What I mean is that I don't have a problem with some kind of division of the law to separate the little guy from the massive behemoths. If that's possible, then I would support it. How that would look, I don't know, and if it's even possible, I don't know.

So in that sense, the answer is I don't know if the law has to have its current proposed form or not, to even work.

>>1181932
>I don't have a problem with some kind of division of the law to separate the little guy from the massive behemoths
Glad to hear it.
I'm sure you understand that the vast majority of those arguing your points about inequality and various solutions don't tend to share your opinions, so it is somewhat surprising.

>>1181932
>I don't know if the law has to have its current proposed form or not, to even work
For one, it doesn't, as the majority of (proposed) revenue would come from corporate sources anyway.
Second, it won't work anyway (No, not because "rich people will leave", though that would happen to some degree), mainly because the web has made location based trading irrelevant in the long run. A tax like that would have to be global to be effective in any way.

>>1181945
I don't concede that it wont work, but it may be very challenging, and some parts of it may be unenforceable. I think you're saying that some japanese guy can trade on the U.S. stock market, and how are you going to tax him? Once again, I don't know.

As far as the rich leaving well.. they're already moving whatever jobs and industry they can elsewhere anyways, where they can pay a pittance to actual real wage slaves, and moving their headquarters to where they can avoid paying tax, so they can save a buck. So if they left how would that be any different from what's already happening?

>>1181958
Well, that's the problem.
You seem to support a proposal, while acknowledging not only that it is flawed in design (doesn't have to affect who it does), but also that may not work/be unenforceable.
Unless the only reason to support this idea is that a political candidate is behind it, can you tell me why the average person should continue to?

>>1181961
You brought the finance tax proposal up, I haven't even said that I support it. But I will say that I think it's worth a try. As has been pointed out, it has been done before. As far what the average person 'should' do, the average person should go with the populist candidate, of course. Someone who represents the people's interests. That's the point of having one.

>>1181977
>i dont support it but we should try it anyway

>Bernie supporters

>>1181977
>Taxing people on losses

>I will say that I think it's worth a try

>Bernie supporters

>>1181341
Yep and then your socialist society will fail because there won't be nearly enough money to pay for anything

>>1181667
ARE

YOU

KIDDING

ME

>>1180047
>Taxing offshore income
Fuck off. It's offshore precisely so that you can't tax it. As far as the government knows, that money doesn't exist. What, are you going to start invading small island nations to get to the banks?

>Wall Street [le jewish gommunist face, implying only slicks in suits trade these days] speculation tax
It has been tried, and failed disastrously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax

This tax sounds neat, except only to people too stupid to know even the basics of how leverage and liquidity works.

>Remove payroll tax cap above $250k
Lots of people are going to start making just $250k with lots of work benefits. Lots of richer people will simply move. If you want to drain your country of investment power, this is how. I hope you like beetroot, Comrade.

>Our pension promises
>Our
Boomer cunts promised themselves loads of money for little contribution, and now they want the money from their failing ponzi scheme, so they're going to make the rest of us pay. I hope he has an aneurysm, the old jew fuck (considering he spent his entire career achieving absolutely nothing and having no responsibilities, I suspect a month in the white house would do that).

>Responsible estate tax act
I like how this doesn't even try to justify the tax with any actual use. It's a plain tax on success. It doesn't specify what "progressive" means either, is that 80-99% or is it 1-10%? Why should inheritance be double-taxed? You already taxed for the money when you made it. What'll happen is nobody will inherit. They'll just sign it over before death, or to a fund for "management".

>End tax breaks for fossil fuel
#SaudisForSanders2016

>Medicare for all
Doesn't specify its taxes. Progressive, how progressive? Double taxing estates again?

Double taxing capital gains? You realize that there won't be any captial gains left to tax after that first financial gains tax, right? US markets will cease to move within a few weeks.

>>1180047
>>1182218
Of course, none of this will ever happen. Hernie could never even win his own primary let alone the presidency, but let's assume he did (for example, if the FBI indicts Hillary - that your leading presidential candidate is under FBI investigation is hilarious, but I digress), and that Trump was 1 delegate short of the limit so that the republicans could take those 49.9% and give them all to Paul Ryan. The outrage against the republican "leadership" would be so widespread that even a jewish communist could win.

How would he pass any of this in the republican congress or senate? He'd be a lamer duck than Obongo, so in that sense, a Bernie presidency would be a good thing. The republicans would only win more seats until the next election as well, making it even more impossible. In any case, I'm european, so a weaker america is in my interest anyway.

Go ahead, make your choice. Just don't pick Trump, or you might actually stand a chance of saving your crumbling empire.

>>1182236
Cruz and Trump delegates wont let rule 40 change in a manner that would negatively impact their chances at becoming the nominee.

The Republican nominee will be Donald Trump or Lyin Ted

>>1182282
I wouldn't count on anything, either way, unless he manages to win the required delegates. All convention rules are temporary, and even if that might favour Trump I wouldn't underestimate the collective power of the establishment to bend the rules to get rid of someone they can't control.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/ben-ginsberg-republican-contested-convention-rules-220499

>Lyin' Ted
Yuck. Makes me think of that fucking webm of him eating his booger. Someone used to post it every thread.

>>1180047
Because nobody will let it happen. There's a reason why his only donors are middle and lower class Americans (hint: it's not because he's denying donations from big names)
His platform is built entirely on stopping "corruption" but you can bet your sorry ass that if he takes office that corporations will funnel twice as much money into politicians to make sure they vote against his policies.

The main problem with all left wing "stick it to the rich" plans is that they not only ignore the law of unintended consequences they refuse to acknowledge such a law even exists. All of these hair brained ideas are extremely short sighted without taking the big picture into account.

Anybody remember Clintons "yacht tax" to nail the rich? Later repealed because it bankrupted boat building and boat maintenance industries resulting in several blue collar workers losing their jobs while the rich were much less effected.

>>1182671
>Anybody remember Clintons "yacht tax" to nail the rich?
Oh yeah, it's a classic example. Everyone starting purchasing their boats from suppliers outside of the US.

Like you say, though, they never seem to remember the lesson.
"Those rich people will have no choice!"

>>1181714
Second this

>>1181710
retarded socialist scum like you should move to the North-Pole.
Go create your dream, everyone is equal, everyone deserves everything nation there.
Good luck to youz

>>1180065
>Stop middle class home-buyers from getting tax benefit from own their homes?

Educate yourself, nigga. That comment is just straight up retarded.

http://www.ibtimes.com/what-carried-interest-tax-loophole-2100059

>Progressive estate tax on inheritances
For the 2015 tax year, the estate tax exemption is $5.43 million. It increases to $5.45 million for 2016. With that in mind, your fictional dad's inheritance wouldn't require you to pay estate taxes on his proceeds (at least, not at the federal level; the states are really the ones who fuck you on estate taxes, in most cases).

>Additional 0.2% payroll tax
Can you show me where those numbers came from? Most Americans earning a median income (which is only like $40k gross) aren't paying $10k in taxes period, let alone $10k on top of what they already pay.

>Medicare for all
Honestly, I could live with an additional 6% tax reflected on my pay scale if it meant that I no longer have to pay an effective insurance rate of 10% of my gross income, AFTER my employer has already paid 75% of my premiums. Healthcare is out of control expensive, yo, and the only way to reign that in is to get the economics of scale working in our favor when it comes to negotiating procedure, pharm, and supply costs.

>>1180072
http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2015/12/18/2016-estate-tax-rates.aspx

>>1182786
You would be thirding it, actually, since someone already seconded it yesterday.

But why would I want to kill myself? I've got a lot going on in my life. More than ever, really.

>>1181801
>Wall Street banks paid back the bailout plus interest.

Yeah, but what about the people who were running the banks in the run-up to 2008 where they fucked over the entirety of the US population and then left them holding the CDOs when the market crashed after their fraud was finally uncovered? Yeah, those people are still holding board-level titles at F500 firms; some of them even have the same job they did before the crash they caused.

That's pretty fucked, man. Wall Street unloaded shitty securities onto pension funds and 401ks, then takes a big dump all over the housing market, and we're all supposed to just be ok with it because they paid back the money we gave them because they royally fucked the liquidity of the economy?

Nah.

>>1182813
>carried-interest-tax-loophole
What a bunch of horseshit. There is no "loophole". These people just want more of that sweet sweet Wall Street money, it's just too tempting.

Really, what they're saying is pretty asinine.
A firm buys investments for you, and you guys split the profit. You pay tax on "capital gains" (which is what these are).
They want the firm, on the other hand, to pay a higher tax rate on the same profits. You know, because somehow, their profit from those investments ISN'T a capital gain.
Laughable.

>>1182820
>You would be thirding it, actually someone already second it yesterday.
You understand that literally everyone hates a smartass right?

Especially the ones that use their "bright" comments as a way to feel themselfes better or to make some statement.

Smartass comments like this have no use what so ever and you should not lower yourself like that.

Although, people like you are already beyond rockbottom in my opinion so it's hard for you to get any lower anyway.

And please do tell what is going on in your life.

How did you become the socialist you are today?

>>1182835
Someone just told me to kill myself, I think I'm entitled to a snarky comment about it.

Thanks for sharing, asshole.

>>1182835

You're arguing with a communist sympathizer

They literally cannot debate without ad homs, strawmen, tu ququo, and red herrings.

Always stay on the point when debating a liberal/socialist/communist

They have to get you off the topic, otherwise they can't accuse you of being racist, sexist, a redneck, etc.

>>1180047
>Why work when Bernie's paying all my bills.

>>1180047
Because the wich will cwy.

>>1182838
And what does that make you feel?

Do you want to talk about it?

I think you are entitled to so much more.

If anything I think YOU and everyone on mother earth are both beautifull and special.

We are all gods childeren, and we all deserve a good life, full of prosperity and freedom.

How do you ask? Well now that is a very good question my son.

And then some ethical naive bs follows, many meaningless utopian words etc.

>>1182839
Ah yes the oldest trick in the socialist book.

Foolish of me to think otherwise.

>>1182859
Doesn't make me feel bad. Nothing you say could make me feel bad, and that's because I'm pursuing worthy goals in my life, and I'm bettering myself. Am I going to share the personal details with you? No, you're just some guy on the internet who hates me. Screw you.

This little side conversation started with your post so eloquently stating how I am "retarded socialist scum" and should kill myself. So it seems to me that I'm right on topic here.

Unless you had another point. Did you have another point?

>>1182883
Unless your worthy life goals are to make a lot of money then give 75% of it away for no reason then you probably shouldn't vote for Bernie

>>1182883
Yeah I did as a matter of fact:
how can you sit there, thinking you are pursuing worthy life goals and stating that you are on the way of bettering yourself while being so retarded?

You conclude that you are right on a topic just because I am telling you to kill yourself. Are you for real right now?

I mean, I am literally telling you to kill yourself and you think it's somehow wise to "stick it to me with being a smart..

You know what fuck it I am going to bed, have fun being a commi and please do think about the North-Pole idea.

It's probably a better idea then ever came into your mind.

>>1182907
than*

>>1182907
Ok so that was your only point. That I'm a retarded socialist scum, and should kill myself. Ok, point taken. Somehow, I'm still not offended though, I just don't know what's wrong with me..

>>1182907
ayo you are honestly 1000 times more annoying than the smartass desu. I'm on 4chan so I can say things like commie and killyourself lololololol no parents allowed

>>1181439
>>1181446
It's not a question of how much they produce, but how much they pollute.

>>1183409
Did you read his arguments for Bernie's policies in this thread? He quit trying to defend them when various anons destroyed his positions and just started crying that people were being mean.

The single thing he could do with his life to better this planet is to end it.

>>1183471
Oh, you want some more, do you? Miss me? That's ok, I'm back to give you some more. The thing, I'm not sure we live in the same world. Anyone can go back and see that your version of events is distorted and garbled, but I believe that it's actually how you see reality, through a distorted and garbled lens that you've picked up somewhere along the way. I have compassion for your plight, but fortunately, or unfortunately your salvation is not up to me.

Anyways, see the thing is it doesn't matter to me if I 'won' the debate or not. My self worth is predicated on more than beating someone else down, believe it or not. That said, it's on a related note that I don't need to support Bernie Sanders' policies or ideas 100% to still vote for him for president. You may live in a world where there is only black and white, but I don't.

That's why I'm glad to have an exchange of dialogue like I did last night, cause I like to see things from different angles. But no one else has brought anything but the weakest and bitterest gnashing of teeth to the table, so I don't pay any of it hardly any effort. It's like static, or some incoherent background gibbering to me.

>>1181852
>Seems to me that the pros still outweigh the cons
Because you don't understand the mechanics of the market. To the uninitiated, HFT's are a parasite. And dark pools/other shady shit is bad, but at their basic level, they provide an incredibly valuable service: liquidity. Those trades with incredibly small margins are what allow people to buy and sell on a whim. Market makers and HFT's facilitate this ability. If you take away liquidity, you slow the velocity of money and encourage more hoarding by corporations. The exact sort of thing you're trying to prevent.

>>1183631
Well put. This is indeed how it works.

Unfortunately, people like this >>1183477 guy would rather listen to speeches about inequality than apply any sort of critical thought to the issue.
They have other people (politicians, mostly) do their thinking for them.
It's simpler that way.

>>1181341
How's Venezuela doing?

>>1181651
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax

>>1183797
Like a cherrypicked country sabotaged by corruption.

>>1182181
Nothing much would change anyways. The rich don't contribute to the economy, they just hoard it, and attempt to siphon any money that's actually used into their hoards.

>>1183826
>The rich don't contribute to the economy
Said every jealous liberal ever

>>1183477
>your all just bitter
>nobody brought any "good" arguments

Go back to your safe zone, aka reddit unless you plan on explaining why the people who's money you wish to redistribute would stay in the US and allow that to happen to them given there are a multitude of other countries they could simply flee to. Nobody is going to take the horse fucking Bernie has in store just cuz when they can simply move to London and keep their shit.

>>1183826
>The rich don't contribute to the economy, they just hoard it,

Do you think these people just have big vaults filled with money? It's invested in shit, and investment drives the economy. You know how people talk about access to capital being essential for economic growth, that's what this is. People with money who want to make more money who invest in things they think will make them money so people they invest in can pay to go try shit.

>>1180047
Nice infrographic but raising taxes on the poor middle class is a gamble.

>>1184324
Taking someone's words and twisting them to fit your point is truly one of weakest tactics. Also one of the most common around here.

Like I've said, I never visit reddit. You guys are my safe zone. /pol/ is where I go to get my chops up, taking on entire threads there with unpopular stances. Try that sometime..

So the financial trade tax: there are pros and cons. You're saying here that one of the cons is that big payers are just going to move their trading elsewhere. Ok, but much the EU already has a version of this same tax in the pipeline, and London is likely to follow at some point. So is the real problem here, the big bad governments trying to reign in some of the greed, or is it the greedy players trying to avoid giving anything back to the economies and societies they profit off of?

One of the pros then, of an FTT, is that it would reduce the amount of automated, high frequency trading that does nothing for the ordinary day trader, but instead destabilizes world financial markets for rapid fire, incremental profits.

>>1180047
America is too stupid to organize that shit

>>1184390
>>1183812
Also, it's a literal quote and nothing after that changes the context.

>>1184390
>London is likely to follow at some point

We are already taxed to the max. There's stamp duty to pay whenever you deal in stocks. That's why we have CFD's over here.

Seriously though, watching these childish American kids arguments about this stuff is just nauseating. Once they grow up a bit they'll realise how lucky they are.

First world problems...

>>1181832
in theory yes, but in a real world scenario businesses would just take the hit. If they raise their prices they risk losing consumers.
>>1184324
True investment only makes up 13% of GDP. Let's say we're in a scenario where all that money IS taxed and investment goes down. Well, all the money that was taxed would just be a new product of government spending, driving GDP back to where it was originally.

>>1184412
Agreed.

Also, if anyone wants to read about the history and current status of financial trade taxation worldwide:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax

Of course.

>>1184390
I'm not sure if you are really stupid or trolling at this point.

So they won't leave and go become citizens of another country because all countries may synchronize their tax laws to Bernie's at some point in the future?

Just kill yourself. You are beyond help.

>>1184412
The UK has tax loopholes for high wealth foreigners designed to attract such people.

Look up non-domiciled tax status.

Daily reminder that you have to pay a "rain tax" in Denmark and certain parts of the UK.

File: calvin troll.jpg (56KB, 436x428px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 436x428px

>>1184432
I didn't say that stock players would leave, or not. It's your argument that they would. I assume some probably would, and some wouldn't.

My point was that it's not really Bernie's law, it's been around a lot longer, and that there eventually there might not be any place to go to avoid this type of tax, at which point 'they' will just pay it.

>>1183419
It is if you're sinking money into an inefficient power source when that money could've gone to other environmental efforts.

>>1184462
>I assume some probably would, and some wouldn't.
You're certainly assuming it's ok to fuck them, on an arguably arbitrary basis.
All you're proving is that you support a system where someone decides what industries survive or not, based on their pet theory of economic good.

Everyone here understands you wouldn't be tolerant of this sort of shit in any way, shape, or form if it affected your field.

>>1180047
>raise taxes
Companies will quickly abandon any reason to stay in the US. Good luck fucking yoru economy, berniecucks.

>>1180047
All we need to do is raise taxes and it will solve all of our problems.

>>1180047

Name one time the government ever handled money in an efficient manner and I will give you 3 examples where they bungled it up and flushed taxpayers money right down the toilet.

>>1184611
The ftt would be for the finance industry, not any other industries. Yes, it is a tax, that finance industry entities would have to pay. Is that arbitrary? I don't think it is. Is it going to kill the finance industry to have a pay an fft? I really don't think so. Is it some degree of a burden? Yes.

If you will read the wiki article, you will see than an fft is more than Bernie Sanders' pet idea. It's an idea that is currently implemented in 40 countries, is gaining traction worldwide, and existed in the U.S.A. from 1914 to 1966.

As far as the day traders, I'm speculating, but it seems to me that this tax might benefit the small trader by leveling the playing field a little bit against techniques and technologies that the little guy can't compete with.

Change needs to happen, and if that means I have to give up something, then I like to think that I will. I mean I have in my own personal life.

>>1184687
>Is that arbitrary? I don't think it is
If you're not doing to all other industries, it's arbitrary selection by definition.

>>1184687
>As far as the day traders, I'm speculating, but it seems to me that this tax might benefit the small trader
You really haven't understood anything discussed here, have you?
Taxing people when they break even or lose money is not going to "benefit" anyone but the government.

>>1184687
>if that means I have to give up something, then I like to think that I will
What you mean is, if a group of people who aren't you (like traders) have to give up something, you're more than willing to vote for the guy who claims he'll make them do it.

>>1184687
>It's an idea that is currently implemented in 40 countries, is gaining traction worldwide, and existed in the U.S.A. from 1914 to 1966.

You are literally wrong on your analysis, multiple studies have been done on transaction taxes and every single one has shown that it increases volatility and decreases volume, as expected.

The reason why we stopped using it was because it harmed the market

>>1184702
Arbitrary: adjective

based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

What I mean is that this kind of tax could help to curtail the kind of rapid fire automated micro transactions that the day trader doesn't have access to. That would be the possible benefit. Yes, otherwise, a tax is still a tax. You pay a broker to make a trade, win or lose. That helps to keep you from making stupid trades. This tax would have a similar effect.

>What you mean is, if a group of people who aren't you (like traders) have to give up something, you're more than willing to vote for the guy who claims he'll make them do it.
We could go back and forth about what I mean, but nah.

>>1184687
Orderflow is a relatively slow computing process. pretty much any consumer grade computer can handle it.

What you're talking about is the elite bleeding edge of the trading world the most innovative fucks around. Most of the techniques fail that's why they call it the bleeding edge.

Where these people have an edge over the "common man" aside from their years of effort and millions in investment, is prescient and rapid analysis of experimental algo's accross multiple products at all timescales. Its hugely expensive requiring specialized knowledge, experience and manhours and computing cycles.
That gap between the .01% and the 99.99 is quite vast. but the gap between 0 and 99.99 is not very big at all.

Its highly illogical to tax the whole group assuming top 50% are winners and bottom are losers. b/c the top .01 are doing doing disproportionate things. 49.99% are still winning unassisted with only their hearts and their minds at play b/c that's all they need.

>>1184707
Didn't give any analysis, just stated some facts. So what you mean is your idea of what my analysis would have been, if I had given one, is dead wrong.

Maybe.

>>1184723
what do you call facts that are false, misleading, or completely fabricated for $1000 monies Alex?

>>1184724
shilling.

>>1184722
Seems reasonable. I don't really know how true that all is, but I'll take a closer look at it.

Not saying the fft idea is perfect. Once again We're talking pros and cons here.

>>1184716
>could help to curtail the kind of rapid fire automated micro transactions that the day trader doesn't have access to
The day trader doesn't need access to these. So your "benefit" is nonexistent.
Why don't you just admit that you're arguing taxing traders is somehow to their advantage?

>>1184716
>You pay a broker to make a trade, win or lose
So you should also pay the government, win or lose?
Is that like how you have to pay when you buy losing lottery tickets? Oh wait, that's just nonsense, isn't it?

>>1184716
>We could go back and forth about what I mean
I think it's pretty obvious that you're arguing for a tax to affect people who aren't you. Very noble.
And if you can't even admit that, you're beyond help anyway.

>>1183631
Yeah, so after doing some reading about liquidity, I would say an fft would reduce market liquidity to some degree. The question is, would that necessarily be all negative? Many articles on the subject talk about having too much liquidity, or more particularly, too much of the market liquidity coming from, say HFTs, because then these entities can crash the market through reckless behavior, like they did in 2008.

>>1180054

america would be fucked if this was actually a problem

when income inequality reaches the point where the super rich just pack and leave instead of saving the middle class a nation is finished

if they could just pack up and leave why would they have our best interests at heart?

this is why we need a middle class

>>1181667
>>1181675
>the elite
>i look at things from multiple angles
>i've been around long enough

how long, anon? 18-19 years?

you remind me of this kid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z6TecVZAhk

>>1184752
Do you think it might be possible for you to write a single post that doesn't contain any element of ridicule or personal attack in it? I mean, if you could.. it would elevate the conversation instead of dragging it down into a mudslinging fest. Unless that's what you're really after, in which case keep it up I guess.

>The day trader doesn't need access to these. So your "benefit" is nonexistent.
Well, maybe it is. My idea behind that was that HFT's have an edge that day traders don't have. You're saying it makes no difference? Maybe it doesn't. I'm trying to talk pros and cons not one sided ultimatums.

>Is that like how you have to pay when you buy losing lottery tickets?

The stock market's not the lottery, although maybe some treat it that way. Yes, a tax is something you pay regardless of 'win' or 'lose'.

>I think it's pretty obvious that you're arguing for a tax to affect people who aren't you. Very noble.

Not claiming nobleness. Just because I'm arguing for a tax that won't affect me directly, doesn't mean I'm arguing for it BECAUSE it won't affect me. Sanders has other taxes in the plan that will affect, and I'll still vote for him.

>>1184779
meh.

>>1184763
hft wasnt even on the cause then that was corruption pure and simple.
most hfts went out of business b/c of it and they're probably the reason it didn't fall further than 50% retracement.

the only hft crash was the flashcrash which lasted less than a day.

>>1184790
>ridicule or personal attack
Nothing in my post meets either definition. These are just facts.

>I'm trying to talk pros and cons
Actually, all you're talking is pros.
When confronted with cons, you retreat to "Well, I don't know that's true". So it sounds like you're giving much more weight to the pro side.

>a tax is something you pay regardless of 'win' or 'lose'
Like how, when a business loses money, they still have to pay tax on it?
Right, that's not how it works.

>>1184810
Not even in America has government had the Gaul to tax a loss.

>>1181651
>When has it been tried and how did it work or not work? I can't even make sense of the rest of this sentence.

Uk, sweden and a few other european countries - google it.

as far as the llc's

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-senator-bernie-sanderss-tax-proposals

to quote "Pass-Through Businesses Senator Sanders's proposal to increase individual income tax rates would increase taxes for passthrough businesses. Pass-through businesses include sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations, and they account for over one-third of total business receipts. Unlike C corporations, pass-through businesses are not subject to corporate income tax. C corporation profits are first subject to corporate income tax (at rates up to 35 percent), and they are taxed again when paid out as dividends to shareholders or when shareholders realize capital gains from retained earnings (at rates up to 23.8 percent under current law). In contrast, the net income of pass-through businesses is taxed only once, at the owner’s individual tax rate for ordinary income, up to the maximum rate of 39.6 percent under current law. Depending upon the type of pass-through business, the income may also be subject to payroll taxes."

Its tucked away and no ones talking about it but thats fucking huge

>>1184810
>Very noble.
>And if you can't even admit that, you're beyond help anyway.

Sarcasm, ridicule, and personal attack.

I am leaning toward the pro's of Bernie Sanders' policies, but that doesn't mean I'm closed to hearing the other side.

>Right, that's not how it works
Your point is obvious, but financial markets are a different beast than the kind of business you're talking about. So the metaphor doesn't go that far.

You seem to be saying that a financial transaction tax is completely nonsense, that no one in their right mind would would ever consider to be reasonable, but the thing is, it is implemented already in many countries, and it is in the works for much of the EU, and it has in the past existed in the U.S.

So it's not that far fetched, is it?

>>1184815
That's not true, dude.

From 1914 to 1966, the U.S.levied a tax on
stock issuances (0.1% in 1965) and transfers (0.04%)

>>1184818
You seem to be saying that hanging minorities is completely nonsense, that no one in their right mind would would ever consider to be reasonable, but the thing is, it is implemented already in many countries, and it is in the works for much of the EU, and it has in the past existed in the U.S.

See, I can play this game too.

>>1184822
Yeah have fun out in left field, I'm not following you there. I'm playing a longer game I think than a lot of you. I'm more interested in the truth than being right even. So I'm looking for communication, exchange of ideas, that sort of thing. I can admit when I'm wrong, but people spout so much bullshit and they say it with such self confidence that it comes off as if it's the self evident truth, so I'm careful about basically corroborating and cross referencing things. I know, I'm the wrong forum heh. But I will say this: I AM NOT A ROBOT.

>>1184828
>I'm more interested in the truth than being right even
That's why you are ignoring facts posted for what you "think might work out if we try it"

>I can admit when I'm wrong
It is clearly evident that you cannot.

>I know, I'm the wrong forum heh. But I will say this: I AM NOT A ROBOT.
Of course not, robots use logic

>>1184794
There's no meh there. Are you practicing for a debate of some kind or what?

Governments do not produce anything. So when a politician says the word 'free' - think theft. It's just a matter of who they're going to steal it from. Anyone educated and out of their early 20's knows this. Bernie Sanders financial policies are only good at face value. A lot like socialism. It looks and sounds good but real world implementation is a different story.

You're either a clever troll or naive. Not sure which.

>>1184818
How many of these european countries are financial capitals of the world? Switzerland and England. Neither of whom have this tax implemented. Germany is a strong financial center but not a capital of finance by any means. The rest are not even blips on the financial

>>1184820
Almost no one was in the stockmarket during this time, and compared to the fees of simply doing business this was nothing. Have you ever seen 10,000,000 shares printed on paper all embossed w/ gold leaf. The efficiency of the market has gone up so much that brokerages are thriving on managment fees of 12 basis points. 0.12% annually

Keynes was just as wrong then as he is now. His economic policies so ruined the country that it took a state of TOTAL WAR to drag the economy back. Once his 0.4% tax was repealed the stock market took off like a rocket. allowing ALL people to efficiently price securities not just the big fish. His policies were designed to curtail the average man from participating b/c his mind simply could not grasp the complexities therein. You really need to go back and study the people of that time period to understand where he was coming from. Only the Anglo-Saxon Teutons were Gods gift to the world to free all people from the torment of barbarism and suffering. Only they could deliver the world to Civility and through the grace of God, be free of mortal calamity. This cascade of progressivism over classic liberalism sent the "civilized" world to the brink of destruction twice b/c its conclusions are always simple and the "Human" thing to do for the Greatest Good. Its always been about some greater or enlightened folk trying to save people. It started by thinking we are the superiors we can make the world better. When they can't the solution is killing the inferior ones. Then it became nurture the inferior ones. But its never been that way. The people who made it always worked hard. Some fail but if you made it you worked. every time.

File: 160325175716-bernie-sanders-bird-large-169.jpg (39KB, 460x259px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 460x259px

>>1184832
>That's why you are ignoring facts posted for what you "think might work out if we try it"
Not ignoring it, just haven't got to it yet. I gotta choose my battles, you know?

I got to get out of here, this is becoming a little unhealthy. Be back, maybe. Maybe not, if I know what's good for me. But I'll leave you with this: consider that Bernie Sanders might not be as awful as they would have you believe. Not perfect, maybe not even close.. but just maybe not as awful as what you're constantly hearing around here.

>>1181318
the funny part is that you are true
>end up with lower lifetime medical cost

The main part is that they don't really use social security too much, which let's that massive drain be allocated elsewhere.

>>1184841
if you can't beat us, join us.

>>1184841
>45 posts by this user
wewlad

I'm aiming for an annual salary of over 250k within the next 3 years.

Nothing you could say or do would ever convince me believe in Bernie's magic policies. Anyways, no discussion of politics on /biz/ otherwise guaranteed shitshow.

>>1180047
Because of balance of powers between the presidency, house and senate

File: 1460273444995.jpg (40KB, 468x614px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 468x614px

>>1184841
>this is becoming a little unhealthy

Hug yourself, you'll feel better.

>>1184853
Shit candidate choices lead to shit show debates

>>1180190
london has had a tax on transactions for ages fking pleb

>>1184841
Why are all these white hipster commies praising a bird?

>>1184763
>Many articles on the subject talk about having too much liquidity, or more particularly, too much of the market liquidity coming from, say HFTs, because then these entities can crash the market through reckless behavior, like they did in 2008.
I can almost guarantee no article written by a source with any sort of repute says that. An abundance of liquidity is not a problem. An abundance of volatility can be, though. I believe you have the two terms conflated. Misrepresentation of securities and manipulation of rating agencies caused the 2008 crash. The "Flash Crash" was, however, caused by HFT's. It lasted a few hours, but served to demonstrate just how deeply ingrained HFT's are in the actual market. If you're averse to volatility, I'd recommend not taking away a part of the market that reliably and predictably accounts for half of all trade volume.

>>1184764
No, the government needs a middle class to be able to tax them. This is just a fact, not moral or immoral, though taxation itself is another matter.
>>1181725
>Wikipedia
Unless it has some actual articles it is based on, I can't know if some Bernie supporter or Bernie himself wrote it to slant his career and record in a positive light. The same man has done not much but vote and whine, and has also on multiple times approve of drone attacks, going to war and trying to defend himself by saying "Well everyone else was voting yes too hurr durr." and has said before in an interview that he doesn't really know how many of his plans could be legally implemented or if he even has the authority from the constitution to be able to do this and ended up with him saying "Uhh, I haven't thought about that, I need to look it up."

He also for a person who really doesn't want to be labeled as a career politician has a good amount of super pacs raising money for him and billionaires involved with his campaign.

File: ItHasntEvenBegun.jpg (3MB, 1051x9708px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1051x9708px

>>1184462
They will not, they will search for alternatives like Bitcoin, and then Bitcoin will act as a black hole of all that cash (cash will be forbidden in the future) + assets in dodgy places + gold which is unconvenient to move and store.
>inb4 muh its easy to track
Nope, it's impossible if you know how it works, and it only gets more private by the day. Study Coinfidental Transactions and CoinJoin among other up and coming BIPs.

You can still get in the train while it's 3 figures and retire in 5-10 years, or you can keep coping while trying to save the world with some delusional "unavoidable taxes".
Pandora's Box has been opened. You can either accept it and benefit from it, or you can keep living as a deprecated grandpa.
The future is everyone being able to have a swiss account on their pocket. Plebs in the matrix just still haven't realized it yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u0RQk2Z1-o

This is every nocoiner in 2016.