Simple Question. Will you vote for Trump?

[jfssms]

I also dropped my mic when I first saw that pretty graph...just look at the great use of contrasting blues, and nice choice of font also. I mean, who could argue with those numbers, right? Well, for starters, anyone serious about trying to understand the plans, proposals, and policies (and I realize that most people on this forum are not). Too bad it's not just laughable propaganda, but it's an outright lie. That's not, in any way, reflective of how Bernie's proposals actually work; and is in every way purposely misleading. I have to give them credit though; they are using simple psychological principles to persuade people, and seem to be doing it effectively...lmao. Vox is relying on the fact the most people won't put much thought into it (or any, for that matter). The graph incorrectly presents Bernie's proposed income tax brackets, and also fails to mention these are marginal tax rates, not actual. More problematic though, then it presents all the new monies needed as being funded by income and payroll taxes (which is totally misleading and mostly false, especially the bit about payroll taxes), and fails to mention the net income savings that will result. In short, Bernie's proposals specifically state they will be funded by x, y, and z sources...and the Vox graph says, "oh look! Bernie's proposals will be funded with a, b, and c sources that you will directly pay for" (i.e., blatant lies, given it's actually x, y, and z sources).

I don't agree with all of Bernie's proposals, ideas, and arguments. But if we're going to have a serious discussion about them, it'll require moving beyond the "oh look, free stuff!" and "it's all just socialist commie BS anyway" level of argumentation, and digging into the mechanics of the ideas and proposals. I'll certainly welcome and enjoy those types of discussions.

Neat how the Burn is able to tax the fuxk out of those at the low income level. David Boren has his eyes set on the same group.

 

[YukonGlocker]

Neat how the Burn is able to tax the fuxk out of those at the low income level...

Which income level, and which taxes? What are you talking about? Please be specific.

 

[jfssms]

Which income level, and which taxes? What are you talking about? Please be specific.

Look at the chart you posted.

 

[jfssms]

My bad, maybe the farmer posted it.

 

[farmerbyron]

Of course, this is all simply my ignorance of Vox. That explains their rhetoric and lies. You're making this too easy...lmfao.

Your attempt to discredit the information in the graph centered on an agenda against Bernie. Given the source of the information is from one of the biggest Bernie cheerleader news sources, your argument is utter nonsense.

The reason no one buys the bull$hit "big govt saves you money" line is because we have all been burned time and time again when big govt tries to "fix" things. Obamacare was supposed to save everyone money too. The reality is that there is no free lunch and costs run higher than projected while revenues run lower than projected. I'd just assume the govt stop trying to "fix" **** and leave people alone.

 

[Glocktogo]

No, I meant the next laughable ad hominem. The more you make this about me personally, and UT more generally, the further you get from discussion of the issues at hand. But by all means, please continue.

Agreed, but you didn't post your source documents for disagreeing with SMS's assertion.

But let's take what you agree with and dissect it. Bernie says it will only be $1.61 per week for the "typical American worker" to get 12 weeks of paid FML. WOW! That's awesome and you wouldn't mind paying $1.61 per week for that, right! Except you won't be paying $1.61 per week. First, you're not a typical America worker. Most American workers aren't. That $1.61 is based on a median wage, not an actual wage. Second, who says liberal Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's math checked out? After all, it's based on the SSA operating a Trust to cover these costs. Since when has the SSA operated in the black? What APY is her estimate based on? What happens to that Trust when a worker who has paid the max of $5.08 per week, takes 12 weeks of paid leave at a rate of $1,915.00 per week, because they make $100K per year? After all, they only paid $264.16 into the Trust for an entire year, but they’re taking out $22,980! If the Trust operates at a 10% APY per year, for say 5 years, it’s turned that initial $264.16 into about $425.00 or so. How many times does $22,980 go into $425?

So that’s an atypical scenario. Let’s take someone making $15K per year and only paying $1.61 per week. That’s still $3,480 out of about $135. I’m sure you’ll say that “all those people who never take the leave will cover the shortage”. Well let me ask you, have you ever known many people who pay into a savings account that will NEVER take from it? Because if you tell people that they’re paying for 12 weeks of paid leave per year, they’re going to want to take 12 weeks of paid leave per year at a much higher rate, than those who are willing to take 12 weeks of UNPAID leave. Seriously, you’re going to create an entire cottage industry around justifying FML leave requests, which will of course necessitate paying medical claims to support.
Sorry, but the math doesn’t add up. You WANT to believe it does, but it doesn’t. Now take that conundrum and apply it to all of Bernie’s other proposals. Unintended consequences, he has them…

 

[jfssms]

incomes of 118,500 to 231,450 seems to be the sweet spot for Bernie.

 

[SMS]

Digging into the mechanics is not difficult. It's not complex. It tax and spend economics in hyperdrive. It is wealth redistribution and a massive expansion of the role of the federal government beyond the scope of its creation.

We don't have to dig down into the numbers. The numbers are always wrong...in the wrong direction as a mentioned earlier.

We don't need more taxes, we need less. We don't need more spending, we need less. We don't need more government services, we need less. Everything Bernie stands for is the exact opposite of that. It's that simple...a simple argument isn't wrong. A simple argument can be very serious...

 

[YukonGlocker]

Your attempt to discredit the information in the graph centered on an agenda against Bernie. Given the source of the information is from one of the biggest Bernie cheerleader news sources, your argument is utter nonsense...

Cool. Show us which which aspect of my argument is nonsense. That is, show us which of Bernie's proposals is accurately reflected in the graph.

 

[YukonGlocker]

Look at the chart you posted.

My bad, maybe the farmer posted it.

That chart doesn't accurately reflect Bernie's tax plans, so we'll have to move away from that to get anywhere on the issue.