Bernie Sanders

cbi1972 said:

If you want to use the 1950s as a point of evidence, we can go back to before the income tax existed to see the implications of that (the nation existed without it, and the people had a healthier relationship with government).

The top marginal tax rate is less of a factor in our economy than things like slavery, industrialization, technology, etc.

Principles of economics still hold. If you want to see disincentives at work, look at what policies government implements when it wishes to shape behavior without straight up making it illegal. It taxes the hell out of things it wants less of, and gives credit for things it wants more of.

Want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Cap and trade.

Want to reduce smoking and alcohol consumption? Tax stamps.

And look at the enormous list of tax credits on the tax forms. Earned Income Tax Credit, Education Credits, Child and Dependent Care Credit, Adoption Credit, Saver's Credit, Small Business Health Care Credit, Plug-in Electric Vehicle Credit

A 90% marginal tax rate is absolutely a disincentive. "Empirical evidence" from the 1950s is fraught with so many confounding variables, it's not worth anything.

Click to expand...

seebell said:

Thanks cbi. Can you provide empirical evidence that a marginal 90% rate is a disincentive? Or are we going by "gut feeling?"

Click to expand...

Last Thursday, 328 members voted for a bill that would slap a 90% surtax on my bonus, with Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel dismissing the payout I received in January as "repugnant to everything that decent people believe in." The Senate is considering a similar bill.
.
.
.
Should the House bill become law, my bonus will be taxed at up to 90% once my adjusted gross income hits $250,000. The tax will apply to employees of those companies, like Citi, that have received more than $5 billion from the government's financial rescue program. As you might imagine, this is a tad perplexing, given that I've never been involved in lending to subprime mortgage borrowers and, as far as I know, nor have any of the folks I now work with.
.
.
Being somewhat knowledgeable about personal finance, I'm trying to figure out how to finagle this. By minimizing my investment income in 2009 and pushing other income into 2010, I reckon I can delay the day of tax reckoning. But even with that finagling, by mid-October, I will hit $250,000 in total income -- and have no incentive to earn any more income in 2009.

At that point, I plan to ask Citi for an unpaid sabbatical. Forget earning more income. There's no point. Instead, you will find me hunkered down at home, desperately trying not to spend money. This will make entire financial sense for the Clements household. What about the struggling economy? Not so much.

Click to expand...

RollSaban said:

Hopefully Sanders will start to address the issue of universal basic income. Tech is automating tons of jobs and without jobs, you don't have consumers to stimulate the economy. Sanders is a refreshing individual to hear today! Very genuine.

Click to expand...

RollSaban said:

Hopefully Sanders will start to address the issue of universal basic income. Tech is automating tons of jobs and without jobs, you don't have consumers to stimulate the economy. Sanders is a refreshing individual to hear today! Very genuine.

Click to expand...

RollSaban said:

Hopefully Sanders will start to address the issue of universal basic income. Tech is automating tons of jobs and without jobs, you don't have consumers to stimulate the economy. Sanders is a refreshing individual to hear today! Very genuine.

Click to expand...

mittman said:

Universal basic income schemes CAUSE automation to replace work force, and companies to move. Keep raising the cost of doing business and businesses either automate or move to where they can get an affordable work force.

You want to force people to be replaced? Keep it up. No skin off my teeth, automation is part of my business. One of the reasons I taught myself to do some of this was trying to find a way to make money in an environment where the work force was getting expensive. More and different types of companies are calling tech people like us all of the time. The more of this you do the more businesses come knocking at our door.

Click to expand...

seebell said:

Thanks cbi. Can you provide empirical evidence that a marginal 90% rate is a disincentive? Or are we going by "gut feeling?"

Click to expand...

Jon said:

they are far from the only cause but I do agree that when wages are artificially inflated that this can be one of the effects.

that said he still has a point. We are approaching a time when automation is going to make whole industries obsolete and like you I am in this space as well in software and hardware automation. But what we have coming is some next level stuff. Think about how many jobs involve driving, taxi, route delivery, bus driver, limo, Long/short haul trucking, I'll be shocked if 5% of those jobs exist in 10 years, 15 at the most, google has self driving vehicles going hundreds of thousands of miles incident free. Uber has already built their business processes to take advantage of self driving cars. In just the last few years garbage collection in my area has gone from a truck with a driver and two dudes hanging off the back to just a driver that uses a a can pickup forklift deal, how long before we don't need the driver? I'd argue we are already there from a tech standpoint we just need the laws and economics to catch up (and they will). Some of those are really well paying gigs too, like truck drivers, pretty soon those long haul rigs will make their way across the country at night without a human involved till its time to load or unload, and even then the human will just watch the machines do that too. Same with the manufacturing that is left in this country those jobs will go to robots. As I often say the manufacturing jobs will come back to the US, but the jobs won't. And if you are thinking "I'm white collar, I'll be fine" you won't, the software bots are already taking those jobs and will be taking more and more. I saw where several insurance companies are replacing adjusters with code and without getting specific I see it in my daily work every single day.

Click to expand...

mittman said:

I agree completely. Just because it is a cause does not make it the only cause. However, I have seen it up close and personal being the driving force. It's not usually pleasant to deploy a system when you are in the room with a bunch of people who know that that system makes them obsolete.

You are right that we are on the verge of some pretty seismic shifts.

Click to expand...

Displaced Bama Fan said:

Why should we have an income tax to begin with? Oh wait, federal reserve, excessive government...nevermind.

Click to expand...

Should the House bill become law, my bonus will be taxed at up to 90% once my adjusted gross income hits $250,000. The tax will apply to employees of those companies, like Citi, that have received more than $5 billion from the government's financial rescue program. As you might imagine, this is a tad perplexing, given that I've never been involved in lending to subprime mortgage borrowers and, as far as I know, nor have any of the folks I now work with.
.
.
Being somewhat knowledgeable about personal finance, I'm trying to figure out how to finagle this. By minimizing my investment income in 2009 and pushing other income into 2010, I reckon I can delay the day of tax reckoning. But even with that finagling, by mid-October, I will hit $250,000 in total income -- and have no incentive to earn any more income in 2009.

At that point, I plan to ask Citi for an unpaid sabbatical. Forget earning more income. There's no point. Instead, you will find me hunkered down at home, desperately trying not to spend money. This will make entire financial sense for the Clements household. What about the struggling economy? Not so much.

Click to expand...

Bazza said:

Bernie was awesome on SNL last night....as was Larry David.....
]

Click to expand...

Bazza said:

Bwahaha......hilarious!

The best thing that ever happened to SNL has to be our presidential races!

Click to expand...

81usaf92 said:

yeah they are, its hard to pick between Larry David playing Bernie or Hammond playing Trump. but the best all time is Carvey playing Perot.

[video]http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/joyride-with-perot/n10313[/video]

Click to expand...