TGP Primary Poll: Democrats

[Cherry 1,302]

Say I only want to spend $16/hr on my employees as a whole. I have an employee who is worth $12/hr and one who is worth $4/hr. If the minimum wage is $8/hr I have to pay the guy who is worth $4/hr at that rate even though he doesn't deserve it. So I have $8/hr left that I want to pay my employees. Can I technically pay $12/hr to the guy who deserves it? I can. But I'm much less likely to. It would limit profits.

[blotsfan 2,112]

The more likely scenario is that each employee gets $6/hr and the owner enjoys saving some money.

[Cherry 1,302]

Then employees would leave for other businesses that pay them a fair wage.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Except every company will do that. Because they're better off with 2 average workers at $4 an hour than a great one at $10.

[oochymp 2,393]

Chern, the problem with your theory is that you're assuming that minimum wage employees are hard to replace, but at that level labor isn't a scarce resource because most minimum wage jobs are minimum wage because they don't take a lot of training or particular skills, sure the person who's 'worth' $8/hour might do the job better, but why would you pay him to do an excellent job when you can pay someone $4/hour to do an adequate job? in most minimum wage positions the difference between excellent and adequate just isn't that wide

Edited December 20, 2015 by oochymp

[Cherry 1,302]

Chern, the problem with your theory is that you're assuming that minimum wage employees are hard to replace, but at that level labor isn't a scarce resource because most minimum wage jobs are minimum wage because they don't take a lot of training or particular skills, sure the person who's 'worth' $8/hour might do the job better, but why would you pay him to do an excellent job when you can pay someone $4/hour to do an adequate job? in most minimum wage positions the difference between excellent and adequate just isn't that wide

Fair enough point. Minimum wage workers tend to be replaceable. Personally I believe this is the case because a majority of them lack incentive to do a better job. My biggest issue with the current system is that we have tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of Americans who would do a better job than many current minimum wage workers. But they can't get a job because of a broken system. If nothing else, I think it would be better to get more people back to work to produce in some sort of way rather than have the government paying 100% of their income. If someone works 40 hours a week at $4/hr they should be given huge government benefits. It's better than working 0 hours a week and getting benefits without work.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Chernobyl426

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

My biggest issue with the current system is that we have tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of Americans who would do a better job than many current minimum wage workers. But they can't get a job because of a broken system.

 

Except they can get a job. That same minimum wage one that you say they can do better than the current holder of that job. Only problem is I guarantee you those people think they're too good for that job. I know because I've been that person back when I graduated 7 years ago after the economy shit the bed too. I was young, bright, and thought, "Why should I work this shit job when I can do so much better?"

Edited December 20, 2015 by CampinWithScragglyAssHairs

[BwareDWare94 723]

Cherny, you are opening a huge can of worms with your idea that more competent employees would be paid more with less regulation.

 

A. Supervisors have favorites. They provide the evaluations and there would be a good amount of time that they would evaluate a decent employee that they like better than a great employee who they don't get along with. Human pettiness would completely destroy the notion that "hard work pays off."

 

B. Regulation is what is going to make employers actually pay their employees. Taking away wage regulations would result in many companies lowering wages and thereby forcing employees to work more hours or find a 4th or 5th job. Regulation is what is going to eventually make it illegal for employers to cut people off before they qualify for benefits--that shit has to end immediately.

 

C. Most structured work environments come with an established an un-challengable hierarchy, and by that I mean lower level employees can't stand up for themselves or stand up to superiors without being reprimanded, written up, or downright fired.

 

If you are not a suit in this country, it takes so many concessions just to stay employed. It's fucking ridiculous.

 

You simply haven't entered the work force yet. Just wait. This shit is obvious, and you'll be back here telling us all that we were right.

[Cherry 1,302]

 

Except they can get a job. That same minimum wage one that you say they can do better than the current holder of that job. Only problem is I guarantee you those people think they're too good for that job. I know because I've been that person back when I graduated 7 years ago after the economy shit the bed too. I was young, bright, and thought, "Why should I work this shit job when I can do so much better?"

I meant a job that is worth their qualifications. Why would someone with a college degree want to work for minimum wage? Obviously at some point they would have to work but that's a huge portion of the people who are unemployed.

[BwareDWare94 723]

So many people in this country are unemployed because they're overqualified for shit work or were canned during the recession and can't find work in their original field, and the only work they can find is demeaning and a joke compared to what they did before. There is no reason that the average citizen in this country should be expected to just "deal with it" when the shit hits the fan but every big wig has his ass covered by our politicians.

Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who shows any sort of connection and understanding for the general American citizen. The rest are so cut off from reality that they make blanket statements based on stereotypes and assumptions about a life that they can no longer fathom. It's absolutely sickening that the best candidate that we've seen in years will likely not get the nomination despite such a huge following.

[Cherry 1,302]

Cherny, you are opening a huge can of worms with your idea that more competent employees would be paid more with less regulation.

 

A. Supervisors have favorites. They provide the evaluations and there would be a good amount of time that they would evaluate a decent employee that they like better than a great employee who they don't get along with. Human pettiness would completely destroy the notion that "hard work pays off."

 

B. Regulation is what is going to make employers actually pay their employees. Taking away wage regulations would result in many companies lowering wages and thereby forcing employees to work more hours or find a 4th or 5th job. Regulation is what is going to eventually make it illegal for employers to cut people off before they qualify for benefits--that shit has to end immediately.

 

C. Most structured work environments come with an established an un-challengable hierarchy, and by that I mean lower level employees can't stand up for themselves or stand up to superiors without being reprimanded, written up, or downright fired.

 

If you are not a suit in this country, it takes so many concessions just to stay employed. It's fucking ridiculous.

 

You simply haven't entered the work force yet. Just wait. This shit is obvious, and you'll be back here telling us all that we were right.

 

A. Yes, I can agree with that. My argument against that is that a great employee who is mistreated would go somewhere else where they're not fucked over by human pettiness and bullshit.

 

B. I think the only situation where regulation really works successfully is big business and franchises. A fair amount of small businesses treat their employees right and do what is best for them. I would settle for minimum wage and benefits set for companies like Wal-mart and such that try their hardest to fuck over their employees to meet their profit goals. I understand the point of view though. Not all businesses are out to screw their employees. Not all businesses are going to do what's right and treat workers fairly. It's a mix.

 

C. Fair enough. I think that's mainly an issue with jobs at places like Wal-mart or McDonald's where all employees are basically worth nothing to the corporation and they can just steamroll through employees without care.

 

I'm not as knowledgeable as some of you when it comes to big business because I haven't worked for a company like a McDonald's or something of the sort where it's impossible to talk to the guy at the top. But I've grown up understanding small business and watching my parents operate their shop. I'm used to companies where the boss is across the building and the door is open, not ones where the boss is 500 miles away. My personal experiences suggest that no minimum wage is the best option for small businesses. It allows more room to pay the employees what they are worth, and be more profitable without fucking someone's life up.

[Cherry 1,302]

So many people in this country are unemployed because they're overqualified for shit work or were canned during the recession and can't find work in their original field, and the only work they can find is demeaning and a joke compared to what they did before. There is no reason that the average citizen in this country should be expected to just "deal with it" when the shit hits the fan but every big wig has his ass covered by our politicians.

 

Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who shows any sort of connection and understanding for the general American citizen. The rest are so cut off from reality that they make blanket statements based on stereotypes and assumptions about a life that they can no longer fathom. It's absolutely sickening that the best candidate that we've seen in years will likely not get the nomination despite such a huge following.

 

Oh I completely agree. It's a shitty situation and it sucks that people who are overqualified for certain jobs have no choice but to work shit jobs because of a bad economy. But really what is the best option we have? The best we can do for now is push through the downturn and try to bring jobs back to the US while holding up the unemployed citizens on welfare. The question is how to we bring jobs back? I believe the best way to both create jobs and bring them back is to decrease minimum wage or completely remove it. Otherwise we'll continue to lose jobs and slowly drain our ability to sustain the unemployed.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I know you get the "you're young" card thrown at you a lot, and you do earn it to an extent, but just know that it is much appreciated that you pay attention and form opinions with the ability to articulate your point of view. Most kids your age can't spell anything longer than three syllables and latch on to what their parents believe. Even if we disagree, Bravo.

As far as point A is concerned, one thing you are overlooking is how different the job market is throughout the country. Think about Michigan for the past how many years. The East coast is also somewhat difficult, especially for people who don't have manual labor experience. Living in a city like Pittsburgh would be absolutely fantastic for me because I can bust my ass and operate machinery, whereas a friend of mine who does live there has no experience with that kind of labor, so she's forced to take minimum wage to $10 an hour jobs just to survive. 1. The background matters even for that $10-$20 range where one can generally survive. We look at those kinds of jobs as easily attainable but who wants to train people?

 

My main point is that there are so many factors that play in to job availability and feasibility for the applicant. It's not as easy as it looks at all. I would suggest that if you haven't already, try to take a first job that will train you on how to do as many things as possible. The more physical tasks you can do without supervision, the better. The more equipment you can operate, from forklifts to skidsteers to tractors to payloaders, the better.

[Cherry 1,302]

I know you get the "you're young" card thrown at you a lot, and you do earn it to an extent, but just know that it is much appreciated that you pay attention and form opinions with the ability to articulate your point of view. Most kids your age can't spell anything longer than three syllables and latch on to what their parents believe. Even if we disagree, Bravo.

 

As far as point A is concerned, one thing you are overlooking is how different the job market is throughout the country. Think about Michigan for the past how many years. The East coast is also somewhat difficult, especially for people who don't have manual labor experience. Living in a city like Pittsburgh would be absolutely fantastic for me because I can bust my ass and operate machinery, whereas a friend of mine who does live there has no experience with that kind of labor, so she's forced to take minimum wage to $10 an hour jobs just to survive. 1. The background matters even for that $10-$20 range where one can generally survive. We look at those kinds of jobs as easily attainable but who wants to train people?

 

My main point is that there are so many factors that play in to job availability and feasibility for the applicant. It's not as easy as it looks at all. I would suggest that if you haven't already, try to take a first job that will train you on how to do as many things as possible. The more physical tasks you can do without supervision, the better. The more equipment you can operate, from forklifts to skidsteers to tractors to payloaders, the better.

 

Thank you for that. I try my best to look at all points of view and form an argument from that. I'm not against changing my point of view based on new evidence.

 

Fair enough. The ability to get a job in the field you specialize in is largely dependent on your location and the local job markets. There is a very foolish argument along the lines of "Don't major in philosophy if you want work!" which completely trivializes the entire problem. Many people who have good degrees can't get a jobs due to overinflated job market that has too many senior employees that can't afford to retire. That along with increasing demands for better and better degrees make it tougher and tougher to actually get a good job that makes more than 20-30k a year.

 

I think once the population declines and the "baby boomers" start to die off we'll see a huge decrease in unemployed citizens. The labor force shrinking will do wonders for young people who are out of a job due to unavailable positions.

[RazorStar 4,025]

So... Logan's Run?

 

I'm all for Logan's Run.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

 

The only way Bernie makes up for the lost production caused by an overinflated minimum wage is as you stated infrastructure. That will provide a temporary boom. Americans will get back to work under a government subsidized paycheck. This will eventually fail as the government begins to run the debt higher and higher.

 

 

Temporary? I dunno about that. Think of all the roads, bridges, airports, railways, and waterways that need fixed in this country. 50 states worth of infrastructure. It would take a generation to fix everything. It needs done anyway, so we may as well put people to work and do it. It gets things fixed and buys us time to think about other solutions in the future. We can't just let things continue to fall apart as they have now. New infrastructure is not only safer, but it also looks nicer and will save taxpayers money once it is complete.

[BwareDWare94 723]

 

Temporary? I dunno about that. Think of all the roads, bridges, airports, railways, and waterways that need fixed in this country. 50 states worth of infrastructure. It would take a generation to fix everything. It needs done anyway, so we may as well put people to work and do it. It gets things fixed and buys us time to think about other solutions in the future. We can't just let things continue to fall apart as they have now. New infrastructure is not only safer, but it also looks nicer and will save taxpayers money once it is complete.

 

Part of the problem with our infrastructure is that certain companies have pretty much monopolized certain areas of this country (even if the the name on the side of the construction equipment is different when you drive 50 miles, chances are they're owned by the same people. These companies charge us boatloads of money for new roads and then put down a sub-par surface that lasts only a handful of years so we come calling again when it turns to shit.

 

So while it seems like our infrastructure is improving, what's really happening is that we're getting swindled into spending summers detouring around what should still be a perfectly good stretch of road because it deteriorated into something that should have taken many years to come to.

 

Our current infrastructure fixes are band-aid fixes. The road looks new but it'll look 25 years old in 5 years.

 

Granted, up here where it's frigid we deal with a lot of frost issues. The frost comes out of the soil and tears holes in everything. We have ways that we protect ourselves when we build slabs for homes and factories and businesses--there has to be a way to do it with roads, too.

Edited December 25, 2015 by BwareDWare94

[Vin+ 3,121]

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates

 

Bernie Sanders has a lot of plans. He's got his single-payer health care plan, his tuition-free college plan, his infrastructure plan, his youth jobs plan, his expanded Social Security plan, his (borrowed from Kirsten Gillibrand) paid family leave plan, and many others.

 

And for every plan, he's got an idea to pay for it. College? Slap a financial transactions tax on Wall Street. Infrastructure? Tax corporations on profits they earn abroad. Single-payer? Raise income and payroll taxes, and then a bunch of others too.

While Sanders tends to portray these as separate ideas with separate financing, I thought it'd be worth adding them up and seeing what the tax code looks like with all of them. I looked specifically at his changes to personal income, payroll, and capital gains tax rates.

 

That leaves out the financial transactions tax, his carbon tax plan, the elimination of many corporate tax breaks he proposes, and so forth. And, of course, it's highly unlikely that everything Sanders is proposing would be passed in its current form should he be elected president, especially with a Republican House. But the combined rates nonetheless give a sense of the scale of change he's calling for.

First off, let's look at income and payroll taxes

 

 

The above chart, by Vox's Javier Zarracina, shows my estimates of how Sanders would change marginal tax rates on wages, both from payroll taxes and from income taxes. You can see my full calculations here.

 

Several of Sanders's plans change income and payroll tax rates. His single-payer plan probably does the most here. It adds:

• A 2.2 percent "income-based premium" paid by all Americans on their taxable income, including capital gains. This is meant to replace the premiums employees already pay for private health insurance today.
• A 6.2 percent income-based premium paid by employers on wage income. This is basically a payroll tax, and most economists agree that the cost of "employer-paid" payroll taxes are passed on entirely to workers in the form of lower wages in the long run. For that reason, I'm treating all payroll taxes as paid by employees, regardless of their ostensible target.
• New 37 percent, 43 percent, 48 percent, and 52 percent income tax brackets.

The single-payer plan also subjects capital gains above $250,000 to regular income tax rates.

Also important is Sanders's Social Security plan, which adds:

• Social Security payroll taxes for wages above $250,000, which are currently exempt. The total rate here is 12.4 percent.
• A 6.2 percent tax on investment income above $250,000.

Finally, there's the FAMILY Act, which adds a 0.4 percent payroll tax on all income: 0.2 percent ostensibly paid by the employer, 0.2 percent by the employee.

 

If you add these taxes to the existing US tax code — including the income tax, Social Security payroll taxes, Medicare payroll taxes, and additional Medicare taxes added by Obamacare — you get the rates in the chart above. Most taxpayers would see a single-digit increase in their marginal tax rate. People with taxable income below $250,000 would see an 8.8 percentage point increase.

 

But the very rich would see eye-popping increases in marginal rates: from 36.8 percent to 62 percent for people with taxable income between $250,000 and $413,350. The big change here is applying the Social Security payroll tax, which adds another 12.4 points.

 

For the very richest Americans, with more than $10 million in taxable income, Sanders's proposal would produce a 77 percent marginal rate. That's not unprecedented — under Dwight Eisenhower, the top income tax rate was 91 percent — but it's higher than the top rate at any point since 1964.

 

Now, marginal rates aren't everything. Most people wouldn't see an actual tax increase of 8.8 percent, even if their marginal rate goes up that much. Effective tax rates — the amount you're actually paying as a percentage of income — also depend on deductions and credits.

 

A chart sent to me by the Sanders campaign estimates that, excluding the premium taxes and payroll tax increases, people making less than $500,000 wouldn't see their effective tax rate change at all. But after adding in the premium taxes and payroll taxes, they'll see a real increase.

 

Whether that increase is worth it is a totally different question. Single-payer health care would make life easier for a lot of desperately sick people — and as the Sanders campaign notes, it's quite possible that the employee and employer "income-based premiums" in his plan will be less than premiums people are already paying.

 

The Social Security tax increases, likewise, finance more generous benefits for seniors at a time when defined benefit pensions are becoming less and less common.

 

But the normative question of whether these rates are good policy is very different from the question of what the rates Sanders is proposing actually are. And if you add them up, they're considerably higher across the board than under existing policy.

Bernie's plan to soak the hedge funds

 

 

 

Even more dramatic are Sanders's proposed increases to capital gains taxes. Currently, including a 3.8 percent surtax imposed by Obamacare, rates top out at 23.8 percent. Bernie would hike the top rate to 64.2 percent and the rate for many making upper six figures to 49.2 percent.

 

This is a result of a) applying his much-higher regular income tax rates to capital gains, and b) the new Social Security investment tax. It leads to top marginal rates that are genuinely without precedent in peacetime.

 

While income taxes on wages have topped 91 percent in the past, the highest capital gains taxes have ever gone (outside of a brief period during World War I) was 39.875 percent, the rate for 1977-'78.

 

The Sanders campaign estimates they'll earn $92 billion a year from taxing capital gains the same as wages. But there's reason to think they'll actually lose revenue.

 

One thing that happens when you increase the capital gains rate is that people stop selling assets — and thus realizing gains on capital that can be taxed — as frequently. That means there's a point beyond which raising the capital gains tax would reduce sales so much that revenue actually falls.

 

Note that this is a very different question from whether taxing capital gains at a high rate hurts economic growth. Many economists think it does, but that effect would reduce revenue by lowering the price at which assets are sold, not making them less likely to be sold in the first place. The latter is a different effect whose existence is much less controversial.

 

David Kamin, a professor of tax law at NYU and a former economic adviser to President Obama, notes in a recent paper, "The Joint Committee on Taxation and Treasury both assume that the revenue-maximizing rate for capital gains revenue ranges from 28 to 32 percent."

 

That's much, much lower than the 64.2 percent top rate Sanders would enact, and much lower than the 49.2 percent rate he'd impose on many who are currently in the top 23.8 percent bracket.

 

It seems quite possible, then, that Sanders's plans would spur people owning stocks and other investments to sell them less regularly, reducing tax revenue by enough to offset any gain from the increase in the rate.

 

One caveat here is that Sanders supports ending "step-up basis," a loophole that means inherited goods that heirs then sell are taxed on the value they gained since the point of inheritance, rather than since the point at which the deceased bought it.

 

For example, imagine Jane Smith buys a Basquiat painting for $100 in the early 1980s, and then dies in 2010, when the painting is worth $10 million. Her daughter Joan inherits it in 2010 and then sells it in 2016, when it's worth $12 million. Under the current law, Joan would only pay tax on the $2 million in value gained since she inherited it, not the nearly $12 million in value it gained since Jane bought it.

 

That's not just a big windfall for rich heirs, it's a powerful incentive for people with valuable assets to not sell them and instead give them to their heirs. Repealing this loophole would on the margins make people more willing to sell valuable assets, partially counteracting the effect of Sanders's rate hikes.

 

Edited January 23, 2016 by Vin

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Wow, look at the 75k tax bracket. Even without Bernie's proposals the middle class is already getting screwed compared to the brackets immediately surrounding them. There's a 13% decline in the tax rate between 75k earners and 118k earners.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Capital gains rates in the 50's and 60's? Good luck with that, Bern.

[OSUViking 505]

Everything I've heard about Bernie says that he's been a pretty bipartisan Senator, and that although he has goals that some consider kind of extreme, he's willing to compromise to achieve progress. Is this true, or is this just people trying to hype him up to something that he's not?

 

Because whether I agree with his policies or not, if he's going to work with both sides to get shit done, he might just earn my vote.

[Vin+ 3,121]

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-01-26/clinton-open-to-idea-of-appointing-obama-to-supreme-court

 

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is open to the idea of nominating President Barack Obama for a seat on the Supreme Court, she said Tuesday, responding to a question at an Iowa town hall.

 

“I will certainly take that under advisement,” she said in Decorah, responding to a man’s recommendation. “I mean, he's brilliant, he can set forth an argument and he was a law professor, so he’s got lots of credentials.”

 

She acknowledged that there might be a few obstacles in the way, first and foremost whether Obama would want the job after eight years in the White House. “He may have a few other things to do,” she said, “but I’ll tell you, that’s a great idea.”

 

Another challenge: the process.

 

“We do have to get a Democratic Senate to get him confirmed,” she said.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Wow, that's actually a brilliant idea.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Senator, President, Supreme Court Justice...the highest rank in each branch of government. Has any American ever done that?

[blotsfan 2,112]

Taft is the only person to be president and Supreme Court Justice, and he never was a senator.