Agema said:
He supported nationalisation decades ago - does he still do now? I wonder, because I've had a look through his policies, and I can't see any significant nationalisation.
I'd be happy to see anything from him to suggest that he's changed opinions. But I haven't. And I highly doubt he would be against nationalization in any situation where the people he was talking to supported it.
Even if he does believe in nationalisation currently, that's not the same thing as intending to do it in a political term.
I agree, I don't think Bernie would try to nationalize major industries as president. But the argument is about his personal leftness.
That's not what this research [https://www.nber.org/digest/dec14/w20289.html] suggests. Jut 35% goes to the workers. Landowners and shareholders tend to be the wealthy, and they are the main beneficiaries.
That is absolutely what that says. I do find it weird that they didn't account for any burden carried by customers in the analysis, but 35% of that tax burden carried by workers is huge. This study suggests landowners and shareholders bear 65% of the tax burden of corporate taxes. I know off the top of my head, the top 10% of earners carry 70% of the income tax burden (just one of those fun facts). This suggests to me that it's better for workers to proportionally increase income taxes than it would be to increase corporate taxes. We have a very progressive tax system, 35% burden on workers isn't a low number. And that's without considering the effects on prices for consumers, which is everyone.
What also needs to be considered is who is getting taxed instead to replace the decreased revenues for a corporation tax cut.
Tax capital gains like Sanders wants. Or increase income taxes like Sanders wants. He's got so many taxes he's willing to throw out, some of them are bound to be fine. If we want to tax the rich, tax the rich. Don't throw the tax at corporations, which puts measurable burden on poorer people downstream.
Seriously, the suggestion of heafty corporate tax sets me off a little too much. But compared to any other method of taxing the rich, corporate taxes a) burden the poor too, b) are easier to write off, c) are possible to avoid altogether through tax havens. Why do people like them so much, I don't understand.
Effective tax rate is more interesting, because that's what entities actually pay. In the USA, this was far lower than the nominal, and whilst at the higher end, pretty similar to several other developed countries.
And if you're comparable to other countries, and someone wants to raise the taxes, that person is skewed from the perspective of those countries too. That's all I'm saying.
Nope. Seems they only hit the really high stuff ~50% at annual income over $2mill, not $500k.
Again, add in an up to 13% or so state tax to his numbers to get the total income tax rate. Here's a calculator for California [https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-tax-calculator#xBDrJGZ2jj]. Currently, if you make $500k there, your marginal state tax rate is 11.3%. At $500k in Bernie-land, you hit 45%. That's a combined 56.3% income tax, which I suppose would be only 3rd highest marginal rate on the planet.
the sorts of reason that billionaires pay proportionally less tax than their cleaners and secretaries now.
The reason billionaires pay "proportionally less" is because the people running the numbers are cooking them. It's the same people who want you to think Jeff Bezos has $150 billion dollars when that's almost entirely a calculation from the value of stock holdings he's legally barred from liquidating.
As hinted above, I'd be perfectly happy if we would minimize corporate taxes and treat capital gains more like we do other income, and people rich off of stocks are benefiting from low capital gains, but they're also paying almost all the taxes as it turns out, and certain parties have a vested interest in rhetorically minimizing the rich's contributions while inflating their perceived wealth.
Silvanus said:
I still think its utter nonsense. A huge number of countries have nationalised utilities, regulations & workplace protections that would make any US Democrat blush.
I genuinely don't think you could name many that would make even some Democrats blush, more or less any Democrat. I think "the US is so far right of everyone else" is one of those "truthiness" claims.
