WSJ: Doctors More Likely to Be Democrats Now...

[Ligament]

Ligament-

I ABSOLUTELY think the government should give back me MY MONEY. I would do much better things with it then them. Why do you want them to have it?

In fact, people are so against this - it blows me away. Why would ANYONE think the government should keep YOUR money. Let them give it back to me. I am sooo okay with that.

But again - so strange people are against this.

I don't think you are strange - but....it is strange that people want the government to have it.

ALSO, take a look at his 150 other well described and data-driven policies (YANG). He is a very smart guy. I like him.

I love the idea of term limits (12 years) on congressman. I love the idea of using Nuclear power with a non-uranium source. (and many of the other ideas he poses. I don't like them all though....)

Oh I'm with you! I don't want the government to have my money either. So cut taxes, instead of FIRST stealing my money via taxes, then giving SOME of the stolen money back to me as a bribe to vote for you.

I think the federa; government shoudl be as small as possiblle. It is a literally a tumor; its only goal is to self perpetuate. It is a cancer.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[hyperalgesia]

Yes, the wealth gap IS messed up. You are paying a higher rate than gates and zuckerberg.

Not for INCOME tax. For capital gains then yes.

 

[Ducttape]

The real problem is that the top 0.1% own so much of the wealth in this country.

actually, more specifically, the top 0.01% own 12% of the total wealth. And this 0.01% is very unlikely to pay their “share” of the taxes.

The IRS Tried to Take on the Ultrawealthy. It Didn’t Go Well.

That is what is unfair.

 

[hyperalgesia]

The real problem is that the top 0.1% own so much of the wealth in this country.

That is what is unfair.

unfair in your eyes =/= problem for society

There is no problem with the top 0.1% owning so much of the wealth in the country. This is an imaginary problem.

 

[epidural man]

unfair in your eyes =/= problem for society

There is no problem with the top 0.1% owning so much of the wealth in the country. This is an imaginary problem.

What do really smart economics professors have to say about income inequality? I haven't read very much from people that say it isn't a problem and if it keeps getting even greater, that is no problem at all. Maybe there are some well written text books that say this.

It is also interesting that many of the richest also speak against income inequality.

Because here is the truth - as I heard one plutocrat explain on a TED talk (and he was speaking to all his rich cohorts) - that if we don't fix it, the pitchforks are coming.

 

[Baron Samedi]

French Revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

An interesting read about incoming disparity.

 

[epidural man]

French Revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

An interesting read about incoming disparity.

Wow.

Revolt happened when the country was in tremendous debt (us currently, getting worse), a regressive tax (us currently), and large income inequality (us currently - getting worse).

Except their revolt ended in decreasing monoarchy in the world, increasing democracy in the world. Somehow I don't think that will happen this time around.

 

[Baron Samedi]

We could use some more democracy in the United States, as evidenced by voter suppression techniques, the electoral college, and foreign interference in our elections. Our current election system is seriously flawed and does not allow the will of America's people to become law.

 

[hyperalgesia]

Revolt happened when the country was in tremendous debt (us currently, getting worse), a regressive tax (us currently), and large income inequality (us currently - getting worse).

Just focusing on the tax system for a minute. We have a PROGRESSIVE income tax and a flat capital gains tax. Calling our system regressive is just not accurate. In NO WAY is it regressive.

If you EARN money as an income tax, the more you earn, the greater percentage you pay. Simple as that. If you're not earning money, but instead investing money and your investments do well, that money is capital gains tax.

The reason capital gains tax is flat and not progressive and also relatively low for long term investments is we have to encourage investment. When we raise the capital gains tax, people just invest outside the US or they don't invest. Either of these cases results in a shrinking economy, recession, etc.

People like Liz Warren are talking about raising the capital gains tax and punishing people for moving their money elsewhere. She also talks about just seizing their money. Finally, her plan calls for seizing the money of people trying to escape the US (and become citizens elsewhere).

 

[pmrmd]

We could use some more democracy in the United States, as evidenced by voter suppression techniques, the electoral college, and foreign interference in our elections. Our current election system is seriously flawed and does not allow the will of America's people to become law.

Democracies fail. The minority has no rights in a democracy. The electoral college assures a balance of power of the states. The Democrat machine trying to get Russia to undermine the election of 2016 is really a different argument than the one you’re trying to make.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Baron Samedi]

Democracies fail. The minority has no rights in a democracy. The electoral college assures a balance of power of the states. The Democrat machine trying to get Russia to undermine the election of 2016 is really a different argument than the one you’re trying to make.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's exactly what the entire legislative branch is for.

 

[hyperalgesia]

That's exactly what the entire legislative branch is for.

The House of Reps doesn't give any rights to the minority.

 

[Ducttape]

Just focusing on the tax system for a minute. We have a PROGRESSIVE income tax and a flat capital gains tax. Calling our system regressive is just not accurate. In NO WAY is it regressive.

If you EARN money as an income tax, the more you earn, the greater percentage you pay. Simple as that. If you're not earning money, but instead investing money and your investments do well, that money is capital gains tax.

the real issue is that the ultra rich do not pay that greater percentage in taxes, because of the multiple loopholes and flaws in the tax law. for the most part, the ultra rich do not pay any taxes. see the preceeding article.

 

[Doctodd]

the ultra rich stimulate the economy in other ways if your argument is they dont pay taxes. The $50 million yacht they bought paid for hundreds of families salaries who built the parts and the yacht itself, who also pay payroll taxes.

 

[hyperalgesia]

the real issue is that the ultra rich do not pay that greater percentage in taxes, because of the multiple loopholes and flaws in the tax law. for the most part, the ultra rich do not pay any taxes. see the preceeding article.

The "ultra rich" do not pay any taxes because of multiple loopholes and flaws eh?

And it's all in the article you posted huh? Riiiight...

 

[SSdoc33]

the ultra rich stimulate the economy in other ways if your argument is they dont pay taxes. The $50 million yacht they bought paid for hundreds of families salaries who built the parts and the yacht itself, who also pay payroll taxes.

Trickle down my A$$

 

[deleted941485]

Vote for me in exchange for $1000 cash per month.

Is the bribery not illegal? I cannot believe this universal income bribe is remotely legal. Should disqualify him from politics.

That’s pretty much all of politics in the US. The politics of who gets what. The type of politics that ever really mattered.

 

[deleted941485]

What do really smart economics professors have to say about income inequality? I haven't read very much from people that say it isn't a problem and if it keeps getting even greater, that is no problem at all. Maybe there are some well written text books that say this.

It is also interesting that many of the richest also speak against income inequality.

Because here is the truth - as I heard one plutocrat explain on a TED talk (and he was speaking to all his rich cohorts) - that if we don't fix it, the pitchforks are coming.

Depending of the school of “economic thought” (really a laughable term) inequality is either dismissed outright by the economist OR requires extreme punitive taxation of wealth and income.

 

[Baron Samedi]

Wow here we are in 2019 still non-ironically arguing that "trickle down economics" benefits anyone except for the wealthy.

 

[Doctodd]

Wow here we are in 2019 still non-ironically arguing that "trickle down economics" benefits anyone except for the wealthy.

here we are in 2019 where Venezuela's govt controlled economy has destroyed a country. My argument is that govt should not have more money to spend because govt does not spend money wisely.

 

[pmrmd]

That's exactly what the entire legislative branch is for.

The legislative branch is a part of this republican government. A straight democracy is a crushing and oppressive rule by the majority.

As far as taxation, a flat tax is the only fair tax. We all benefit from the FAA, FDA, etc. and the politicians buying votes by pushing taxation to the top 10% has created an entitlement class. The rich are the only ones paying tax here.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deleted941485]

The legislative branch is a part of this republican government. A straight democracy is a crushing and oppressive rule by the majority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A majority which can be just as arbitrary, uninformed, and dangerous as any dictator.

 

[Doctodd]

for federal taxes, if we implement a VAT tax, are we getting rid of the IRS? Or are we paying both?

 

[deleted941485]

for federal taxes, if we implement a VAT tax, are we getting rid of the IRS? Or are we paying both?

I think everyone with a brain knows the answer to this question. VAT + Income Tax seems to be the way it goes in most of the sorry developed world. The VAT is easier to raise funds with and people dont get as angry about a VAT getting raised as they do about their income taxes.

ITs the sort of tax that gets dems and their economic advisers to shoot in their pants. It provides much needed revenue for their social programs but is regressive in nature.

I am not aware of any nation of significance that relies solely on VAT alone.

 

[hyperalgesia]

here we are in 2019 where Venezuela's govt controlled economy has destroyed a country. My argument is that govt should not have more money to spend because govt does not spend money wisely.

Even in this incredible time in America, people are voting for socialists, solely based on what the TV talking heads tell them. "Capitalism has failed, let's try the Venezuela model!" Incredible.

 

[Ducttape]

the ultra rich stimulate the economy in other ways if your argument is they dont pay taxes. The $50 million yacht they bought paid for hundreds of families salaries who built the parts and the yacht itself, who also pay payroll taxes.

that is the same old Reagan economics fallacy that has been disproven.

in fact, some of the ultra rich are agreeing that they should be taxed more:




noone is advocating for Venezuala model. this assumption of the Fox mesmerized audience is Fake News at its finest.

 

[epidural man]

My argument is that govt should not have more money to spend because govt does not spend money wisely.

YES! That is why Yang’s idea is brilliant! Give me my money back!

Yang - smartest guy on the ticket.

 

[hyperalgesia]

I like this idea that Yang supports:

Automatically Sunset Old Laws would require Congress to routinely renew important laws

 

[SeniorWrangler]

Don’t the top 10% pay 90% of all taxes? And the bottom 50% don’t pay any taxes whatsoever. If I’m right that’s pretty messed up

I’m going to pretend you said “income taxes” here. This is the Mitt Romney 47% argument all over again.

 

[SeniorWrangler]

I can’t believe anybody’s arguing in favor of letting the government spend more money?

There’s no relationship between the government revenue and government spending, at least in the short run. Remember “Deficits don’t matter”?

 

[pmrmd]

YES! That is why Yang’s idea is brilliant! Give me my money back!

Yang - smartest guy on the ticket.

He is going to take more of your money than what is taken now to give you back a little bit. The entitlements still have to be funded as well as defense. The national income means you have to pay even more. I don’t understand how you feel this is a good thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Doctodd]

I think everyone with a brain knows the answer to this question. VAT + Income Tax seems to be the way it goes in most of the sorry developed world. The VAT is easier to raise funds with and people dont get as angry about a VAT getting raised as they do about their income taxes.

ITs the sort of tax that gets dems and their economic advisers to shoot in their pants. It provides much needed revenue for their social programs but is regressive in nature.

I am not aware of any nation of significance that relies solely on VAT alone.

so they only get slightly angry with a VAT increase, vs the income tax which causes the people to get really angry? How angry is sufficient ....exactly? If you want to pay more taxes, you can send a check to the IRS right now saying "thank you".

 

[Doctodd]

that is the same old Reagan economics fallacy that has been disproven.

in fact, some of the ultra rich are agreeing that they should be taxed more:




noone is advocating for Venezuala model. this assumption of the Fox mesmerized audience is Fake News at its finest.

well that's a relief.....i was hoping they would not try socialism ala Venezuela cuz my family there says it hasnt worked very well in only 10 years of being forced...errr.....implemented.

 

[hyperalgesia]

If you want to pay more taxes, you can send a check to the IRS right now saying "thank you".

Someone needs to send an invoice to the people who signed that ridiculous letter. "You requested to be taxed more so please send 1b to the US treasury. Due upon receipt". Someone needs to publish their response, "Did you send in your check yet George Soros??"

 

[epidural man]

He is going to take more of your money than what is taken now to give you back a little bit. The entitlements still have to be funded as well as defense. The national income means you have to pay even more. I don’t understand how you feel this is a good thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

yeah - not sure why I do. I have enjoyed Yang's explanations of why he thinks this would help given the realities of up coming problems we will be facing (in interviews with Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, and written information he has provided). Also, based on what I know about him - he seems to look at data and seems to make decision based on that, and he knows WAY MORE about this stuff than I do - so I give his idea a little benefit of the doubt. I know what I think sounds good but what do I know? You have to understand, he isn't just giving a hand out - he is seeing a HUGE problem coming, and he is trying to say - we need to come up with solutions NOW before the real problem hits and destroys us. The only thing I have heard people say as a counter argument is "nope. there isn't a problem and won't be a problem."

Let me give you an example of something he talks about that I find interesting. He is for a 16 y/o voting age - and when I first heard this - my response was "Absolutely NOT. Hell NO. Kids are SOOOO stupid and can't see nuance in anything (although to be fair - from discussions with people who align with a political party - most people can't seem to find nuance in anything but whatever). BUT...then I read about his discussion of this topic - and it turns out (I guess... I mean I assume he isn't lying to me) that if you lower the voting age, the EFFECT of this is that every age sees higher turn out rates. That is super interesting, and would change my mind. Because yes - 16 y/os are super stupid, but if the effect increases more voters across the spectrum, I think that is a good idea.

I find people who are political have a real hard time bending their thoughts around the whys of things. This UBI is a perfect example. People against it are against it because they hate the idea of a free handout, of bigger government. they say things like poor people spend money poorly. they make poor life choices. government isn't a good steward of money. But Yang is looking at problems that need solved and saying - how do we solve this problem? Many will say, the government isn't the answer. But UBI isn't the government solving the problem. Its getting money in the hands of people so perhaps they solve their own problems. Money in the hands of people is a good thing. Money OUT of the hands of the government is a good thing. I get people are against wealth redistribution. On many levels I am too - but I'm not against trying to come up with a workable solution to an Automation problem that is coming that will be 50x the size of the industrial revolution problem of joblessness. Maybe UBI is bad - who knows? I know many on here are 100% sure it is very bad and won't help curb the problems coming. I wonder how they know that.

 

[hyperalgesia]

yeah - not sure why I do. I have enjoyed Yang's explanations of why he thinks this would help given the realities of up coming problems we will be facing (in interviews with Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, and written information he has provided). Also, based on what I know about him - he seems to look at data and seems to make decision based on that, and he knows WAY MORE about this stuff than I do - so I give his idea a little benefit of the doubt. I know what I think sounds good but what do I know? You have to understand, he isn't just giving a hand out - he is seeing a HUGE problem coming, and he is trying to say - we need to come up with solutions NOW before the real problem hits and destroys us. The only thing I have heard people say as a counter argument is "nope. there isn't a problem and won't be a problem."

Let me give you an example of something he talks about that I find interesting. He is for a 16 y/o voting age - and when I first heard this - my response was "Absolutely NOT. Hell NO. Kids are SOOOO stupid and can't see nuance in anything (although to be fair - from discussions with people who align with a political party - most people can't seem to find nuance in anything but whatever). BUT...then I read about his discussion of this topic - and it turns out (I guess... I mean I assume he isn't lying to me) that if you lower the voting age, the EFFECT of this is that every age sees higher turn out rates. That is super interesting, and would change my mind. Because yes - 16 y/os are super stupid, but if the effect increases more voters across the spectrum, I think that is a good idea.

I find people who are political have a real hard time bending their thoughts around the whys of things. This UBI is a perfect example. People against it are against it because they hate the idea of a free handout, of bigger government. they say things like poor people spend money poorly. they make poor life choices. government isn't a good steward of money. But Yang is looking at problems that need solved and saying - how do we solve this problem? Many will say, the government isn't the answer. But UBI isn't the government solving the problem. Its getting money in the hands of people so perhaps they solve their own problems. Money in the hands of people is a good thing. Money OUT of the hands of the government is a good thing. I get people are against wealth redistribution. On many levels I am too - but I'm not against trying to come up with a workable solution to an Automation problem that is coming that will be 50x the size of the industrial revolution problem of joblessness. Maybe UBI is bad - who knows? I know many on here are 100% sure it is very bad and won't help curb the problems coming. I wonder how they know that.

I'm not morally opposed to ubi but I'm not sure what problem it would solve. I don't think people who can't make it in the world will do much with a few extra bucks. Then there's inflation... If everybody has 1000 bucks, then nobody has 1000 bucks. Ie the poverty limit would just go up by 1000 bucks.

I would be fine trying it on a small scale and I think it had been tried...

 

[lonelobo]

Democracies fail. The minority has no rights in a democracy. The electoral college assures a balance of power of the states. The Democrat machine trying to get Russia to undermine the election of 2016 is really a different argument than the one you’re trying to make.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would argue the states have too much power Wyoming gets 2 senators the same as Texas or California?

 

[lonelobo]

here we are in 2019 where Venezuela's govt controlled economy has destroyed a country. My argument is that govt should not have more money to spend because govt does not spend money wisely.

You use this example in every argument, Stop with the Venezuela comparison it just makes you look even sillier

 

[SSdoc33]

I'm not morally opposed to ubi but I'm not sure what problem it would solve. I don't think people who can't make it in the world will do much with a few extra bucks. Then there's inflation... If everybody has 1000 bucks, then nobody has 1000 bucks. Ie the poverty limit would just go up by 1000 bucks.

I would be fine trying it on a small scale and I think it had been tried...

 

[Baron Samedi]

You use this example in every argument, Stop with the Venezuela comparison it just makes you look even sillier

It's a FOX News talking point that is easy for their fans to repeat. It's basically a 2-neuron response at this point for many: hear anything regarding expanding popular social programs and respond, "but Venezuala!"

They conveniently turn a deaf ear when hearing anything about the literal dozens of developed countries who are seeing success with the exact same ideas as those proposed.

 

[Doctodd]

It's a FOX News talking point that is easy for their fans to repeat. It's basically a 2-neuron response at this point for many: hear anything regarding expanding popular social programs and respond, "but Venezuala!"

They conveniently turn a deaf ear when hearing anything about the literal dozens of developed countries who are seeing success with the exact same ideas as those proposed.

i only used 1 neuron. If Bernie Sanders and other democrats hadnt glorified Venezuela as a model in the past, then i wouldnt be repeating it. It could be argued that the US is in a much better economical position than any of those countries, so the rationale to copy them loses logic. The democrats scream that we are doomed unless we elect them like they always do during an election year. I think ill pass.

 

[Dusn]

Then I suggest you at least vote in the democratic primary and vote for the most centrist of them (maybe Biden?). I would not count on Trump winning again (and, personally, I don’t want him to.)

 

[hyperalgesia]

So this program was funded by a grant, which ran dry. Listening to the clip I started to imagine what if I had donated my money to this project, would I feel my personal money was well spent? The answer is no. If I am going to donate my money, I would rather it go to cancer research or something. I don't want to just give money away to people to use at their discretion, even if, as NPR implies in this experiment, they spent it on necessities.

 

[Gauss]

What do really smart economics professors have to say about income inequality? I haven't read very much from people that say it isn't a problem and if it keeps getting even greater, that is no problem at all. Maybe there are some well written text books that say this.

It is also interesting that many of the richest also speak against income inequality.

Because here is the truth - as I heard one plutocrat explain on a TED talk (and he was speaking to all his rich cohorts) - that if we don't fix it, the pitchforks are coming.

Opportunity Lab | Taxation & Inequality

www.olab.berkeley.edu

nobody gives a rats ass about venezuela except todd who is obsessed with it, give me switzerland (a socialist democracy) anyday

 

[pmrmd]

I would argue the states have too much power Wyoming gets 2 senators the same as Texas or California?

It's called the United States for a reason. The House is the popular vote of the people and reflects the difference in population and equal representation is in the Senate to give smaller states their rights. It sounds like you are in agreement with the "Nation of Texifornia" and what some of those people want gets shoved down the throats of everyone else, even some people in Cali that think differently. The political left craves power and they feel they have the right to dictate their opinions upon others. The undertones are there in your comment, my friend.

 

[pmrmd]

It's a FOX News talking point that is easy for their fans to repeat. It's basically a 2-neuron response at this point for many: hear anything regarding expanding popular social programs and respond, "but Venezuala!"

They conveniently turn a deaf ear when hearing anything about the literal dozens of developed countries who are seeing success with the exact same ideas as those proposed.

How derisively dismissive you are. With Liz's wealth tax and income tax and nationalization of the healthcare industry its pretty darn close to Venezuela. I guess she doesn't want to nationalize the oil industry like they did down there just put them out of business here.

What success in the developed countries are you referencing?

 

[Baron Samedi]

How derisively dismissive you are. With Liz's wealth tax and income tax and nationalization of the healthcare industry its pretty darn close to Venezuela. I guess she doesn't want to nationalize the oil industry like they did down there just put them out of business here.

What success in the developed countries are you referencing?

The dozens of countries with universal healthcare.

 

[Doctodd]

The dozens of countries with universal healthcare.

i dont think Trump will win.....the democrats have attacked him 24/7 and the Republican rhino's havent done anything in response.

Opportunity Lab | Taxation & Inequality

www.olab.berkeley.edu

nobody gives a rats ass about venezuela except todd who is obsessed with it, give me switzerland (a socialist democracy) anyday

maybe not in your neck of the woods or if you listen to liberal media who wont cover it because it doesnt fit their narrative, but in Miami there is a very large Venezuelan population. Come to think of it, there is a large Venezuelan population all around South American now because half of the 50 million Venezuelan's have fled to other countries. Do you think it is coincidence that the govt of Venezuela confiscated the people's guns a few years ago? Does it sound familiar?

"The government under socialist president/dictator Hugo Chavez entirely banned the civilian ownership of firearms and ammunition in 2012, after a period of amnesty during which people could turn in weapons. Naturally, crime continued to increase. As usual, however, the purpose of a gun ban was not about preventing crime but consolidating power. Chavez was just more blatant about it. "

 

[Baron Samedi]

The only candidate who has proposed confiscating guns afaik is that clown Beto O'Rourke, correct?

 

[Doctodd]

The entire democrat party has run on it at one time or another. It’s a steady flow towards it AT BEST.