Bernie Sanders has been gaining a lot of traction in the polls. There are a lot of attributes that I find both very appealing and very admirable about Bernie Sanders. But there are many others that simply kill it. Here are two examples of his proposed reforms:
"Free" college for everyone: I really wish people would stop using the term "free" for taxable items. It's incredibly misleading and it's simply a terrible idea. Without "free" college, there is already an oversaturated market of college grads that is diluting the pool. College education, particularly Masters and Doctorates, is supposed to be a lot like precious metals in that what drives their value is their utility in tandem with their rarity. Oversaturating the market with college grads just means there are even less relevant jobs to go around than there already are.
90% Robin Hood Tax
Sanders wants to tax the rich at a laughable 90% which would absolutely crush innovation and production. Sanders views economic success as inherent greed. What he doesn't understand is that companies like Apple could not operate by fleecing the top brass at 90%. You might as well say that your goal is to attack the health of the economy, because there's no businessman who would stand for anyone stealing 90% of anything, let alone their earnings. 50% would have been radical enough, but 90% is like saying, "Hi, my name is Bernie Sanders and I am completely unelectable."
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
Sanders wants to tax the rich at a laughable 90% which would absolutely crush innovation and production. ...
Look up the tax code rates under Eisenhower. The US economy was in top form with lots of innovation and production. This is a republican propaganda for cutting taxes for the rich. The last 30 years have shown us the benefits of cutting taxes for the rich: the rich get richer and the economy tanks with less innovation and production (which is shipped overseas).
The middle class is the source of innovation and production and is the real job creating sector of the economy.
Taxes are user fees, they are what you pay to live in the country and benefit from the economy. The idea is that under a just tax system those who benefit more pay more and those who barely scrape by pay the least.
"Free" college for everyone: I really wish people would stop using the term "free" for taxable items. It's incredibly misleading and it's simply a terrible idea. Without "free" college, there is already an oversaturated market of college grads that is diluting the pool. ...
It used to be that education was for you to improve yourself and learn to take an intelligent approach to life, not as a route to a job. This concept has been lost in the hype to get jobs so you can work 8 or 9 hours a day doing tasks for someone else.
Extending out school system from elementary, middle and high school to include optional trade schools and community colleges without charging fees of the students would let more people learn what they want to learn. Even expanding it to colleges and universities would mean they could concentrate of learning rather than fundraising. Other countries are doing this and seeing many social benefits (lower crime rates, more arts and startup artisan companies, etc).
This is "free" in the same sense that public education is "free" -- the students don't pay for it as a criteria of admission.
What you get out of a society depends on what you put in. If you want to life in a society of ignorant, gullible, morons (Tea Party types?) then by all means do away with school altogether -- you don't need an education to be an idiot. If on the other hand you want to live in a society of people that make intelligent, informed decisions, especially regarding democratic leaders, then you want an educated public -- not so they can get a job, but so that they can be informed and know the difference between hokum\hype\histrionics and reality.
I really wish people would stop using the term "free" for taxable items.
That's exactly what the term "free" should be used for - items that are free to the end user because society deems them too important to be allocated by wallet size.
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $400,000: 92% - 91%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25%
During the administration of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a 92 percent marginal income tax rate for top earners in the United States remained from the previous administration of Harry S. Truman. At the time, the highest tax bracket was for income over $400,000.
This was nearly the highest tax rate for top earners in the century, just under the 94 percent rate for income over $200,000 instated during World War II under Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency.
In 1954, the 92 percent marginal rate decreased to 91 percent under Eisenhower. The maximum tax on long-term capital gains was 25 percent -- a rate that remained in place for a decade.
There were also strong unions in the '50's so middle-class blue collar workers earned good wages.
Eisenhower used tax money to build the interstate highway system, an investment in infrastructure that was designed for rapid military response to any invasion problem, but which benefited the country much more than any armament or ammunition program -- interstate commerce boomed and people had lots of disposable income.
You want to "make America Great Again?" -- then return to strong unions to protect workers and just tax systems where those who benefit most from the economy pay the most to support the government that makes that economy possible.
You want to "make America Great Again?" -- then return to strong unions to protect workers and just tax systems where those who benefit most from the economy pay the most to support the government that makes that economy possible.
If you have punative rates of taxation a couple of things happen. In the short term the state gets some income. Then those that are being hurt take avoiding action, leaving the country, putting their money in tax havens and so on. If there's a different rate of personal taxation than corporate taxation, they reclassify their earnings - a process that is easy for those with money and hard for an average worker.
The second part of your wish list, strong unions tend towards non-competitive restrictive practices and protectionism. Costs would rise which will lead to the erection of trade barriers as the US would have a price disadvantage. Exports would fall.
The combination of an outflow of revenue and high-worth individuals plus a protectionist, inflexible and high cost labour force with falling exports would put the economy into another depression.
Extreme tax positions don't work in the long term - they have to feel fair for everyone. 90+% is unfair.
Rather than attempting to return to the bad days of powerful unions, stronger employment law would be an alternative - plus decent health and benefit systems.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Why not settle the problem by only granting access to higher education to those who have demonstrated a certain amount of past academic success? And then pay fully for that education.
Why not settle the problem by only granting access to higher education to those who have demonstrated a certain amount of past academic success? And then pay fully for that education.
That would be an excellent paradigm for major college\university education, but I would still make trade schools and community colleges free for those who want to go, period. I would also wrap senior year of high school into community college and have associates degree from a cc count as freshman year of further college. This would let those who don't want an education to exit the system (temporarily -- they could always choose to go later) and enter the work-force (we ultimately need "burger flippers") or learn a trade (which can be good pay -- electrician, plumber, carpenter, nurse aid, emergency responder, etc).
One of the problems is who judges the merit? Some high schools are very academically challenged and it is hard for an intelligent student to get much education in a poor learning environment. This is after all the basis for Affirmative Action, yes?
One reason for going with a CC path is that it can also include remedial or catch-up education for those that come from academically challenged high schools, and prep education for later university or just a well rounded education of high quality -- with an Associates Degree.
The CC's could then set the standard for the merit scholarships to higher degree programs at colleges and universities and make a Bachelors Degree a 3 year program instead of 4.
A well prepared student with a known education\career path could finish the Assoc Degree in 2 years, and the Bachelor's from college or university in 3 years, so same time-line as today.
Less well prepared students, and ones that don't really know what they want to study could take 3 or more years to get the Assoc - especially if they have to work part-time.
One reason for going with a CC path is that it can also include remedial or catch-up education for those that come from academically challenged high schools, and prep education for later university or just a well rounded education of high quality -- with an Associates Degree.
I agree.
I predict that affirmative action for college entry will be pretty much non existent after the Supreme Court rules in the upcoming University of Texas case.
But yeah there is the problem that K-12 education is decidedly uneven with pockets of poor schools and mediocre invariably being the destination for the kids of poor parents. Under the current system, the proposed restrictions on college entry (to demonstrated successful students who go for free) would be a transfer of wealth from the general public to primarily to more wealthy kids many of whom are perfectly capable of paying for an education. I could not get behind such a system without major changes in the current education apparatus.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
Why not settle the problem by only granting access to higher education to those who have demonstrated a certain amount of past academic success?
Sure, but what's going to be the metric for "past academic success"? Standardized tests are nonsense, especially when we're talking about SATs (and similar tests). They are very parochial ways of measuring academic potential and talent of individuals.
And then there's the problem of creating a kind of genetic social stratification, where some individuals are -- by virtue of DNA sequences in their genomes -- better at standardized tests than others.
And, of course, unless you find a good way to counter this, then only granting access to higher education for those who have demonstrated past academic success creates an increasingly wider gap between those with wealthy parents and those with underprivileged parents.
Why can't we look at higher education as an investment that society makes in every one of its individuals?
Extreme tax positions don't work in the long term ...
And yet what we see currently are the results of extreme low tax position with increased wealth division, loss of middle-class jobs, and high rates of poverty. If I was going to pick a corrosive tax system that ruins the economy in the long run, it would be the republican plan to give away money to people who don't need it and take it from people who need it.
When tax rates were more progressive from bottom to top and those who benefited most from the economy paid the most, the economy boomed.
ie -- the evidence is opposite of what you claim.
The second part of your wish list, strong unions tend towards non-competitive restrictive practices and protectionism. ...
More conservative crap propaganda. Strong unions tend to cause just distributions of profits to those doing the work that results in the profit.
Again, history shows that strong unions results in strong middle class jobs with lots of disposable income to spend, boosting the economy and creating job growth. That was when one person working could support a family -- the average worker needs two jobs or two parents working to support a family now: this is NOT a better system.
Unions are not free of problems (what system is?) but I'll take those problems over the current system. Gladly.
My problem with unions is that they should be obsoleted by incorporating the benefits of unions into the general economy to the benefit of all workers -- an economy with a social consciousness, which means a minimum living wage and full health benefits (single payer) etc.
A mixture of socialist programs with capitalist programs.
And then there's the problem of creating a kind of genetic social stratification, where some individuals are -- by virtue of DNA sequences in their genomes -- better at standardized tests than others.
A gene for standardized testing?
That's a little ridiculous as far as rebuttals go.
That is a merit-based system (at least the Minnesota incarnation is).
Some high schools are very academically challenged and it is hard for an intelligent student to get much education in a poor learning environment.
I have suggested elsewhere reforming the funding system for public schools. I think the reforms I've suggested would handle this.
But a merit system can work even without such reforms (though not as well) so long as they exist in a culture that actually values education and in which the reward is guaranteed free college and the lifetime higher earning potential that accompanies this.
This is after all the basis for Affirmative Action, yes?
No, it's not; because Affirmative Action doesn't pay attention to the things that actually affect academic achievement such as poverty, parent literacy, etc.
Affirmative Action is to make guilty white folk feel better about themselves without actually having to do anything to help folks who actually need it.
™ Version 4.2
