Bernie Sanders' disingenuous economics

[cosmicone]

It is easy to tell a bunch of hungry people that people living in the big mansion are eating steak or lobster. It is human nature to begrudge people who have more, especially when one is struggling. It is also an incendiary argument that those people in the mansion have more because they took it from you. You should be eating the steak and lobster because you are the ones who earned it for those people.

Quite an effective campaign strategy, however, it is extremely disingenuous. In defiance of all basic logic and the accumulated economic wisdom as well as history of human civilization, economics remains a zero-sum game for Bernie Sanders. The problem is that his willingness to pile new trillion-dollar obligations on top of our existing debts requires him to keep defining “Other People’s Money” down. Thus, basic comforts of civilization are progressively viewed as suspiciously decadent bourgeois opulence by Sanders.

In one interview with the New York Times’s John Harwood, Sanders pretty much gives up the game.

He didn’t flinch over returning to the 90 percent personal income tax rates of the 1950s for top earners. And if reducing income inequality reduces economic growth, he says, that’s fine. “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants,” he said, “when children are hungry in this country.”

This prompts a lot of questions. If reducing income inequality must necessarily mean reducing economic growth, who decides what’s to be done and implements the necessary sacrifices? If reducing our options for spray deodorants means we’re able to feed hungry kids, think how many more hungry kids we’d be able to feed if we just rationed everything to each person according to their need? Why hasn’t anyone tried such a fiendishly clever economic system before?

I’d laugh in Sanders’ face and throw reams of economic literature from public choice theory to good old supply and demand prove that Sanders’s economic logic would actually make more kids starve. Nearly a century ago, some politician likely observed the October Revolution was all about hungry children as well.

Either Sanders is ignorant of or is nefariously ignoring the fact that wealth is created from economic growth so people who become rich don’t take a bigger piece of the same pie but make the pie larger. Mark Zuckerberg’s or Larry Paige’s billions didn’t come at the expense of people in Peoria – they created them. Not only that, while they and others like Bill Gates became billionaires, tens of thousands of ordinary people became millionaires as well. This growth has created an economic boom near their companies and builders, real estate agents, carpenters, construction workers and limo drivers are all prospering because of their success.

Dollar and Kraay with Tatiana Kleineberg revisited the economic paradigms of 1991 for the World Bank. They found that 75% of the increase in poor people’s wages comes from economic growth and only 25% from taxation. Bernie’s plan of confiscatory taxation will increase the 25% share to 35% but will reduce the 75% that comes from growth down to near zero. In other words, the poor will be worse off under Bernie’s plan. Thus, Bernie will make poor people poorer.

Even more disingenuous is the idea that economic inequality is rising steeply. It is not.



According to the chart above, between 1980 and 2010 the income inequality has risen by a mere 2 percent.
The old adage that socialists are lousy economists who see the economy as a zero sum game where one group’s prosperity comes at the expense of another group is patently false. Socialism promises to make everyone rich – it ends up making everyone poor and struggling to find resources.

In my opinion, Hillary Clinton has a balanced economic plan that will raise taxes modestly on the upper brackets while lowering taxes on the lower brackets. This will fuel an economic growth and her plan will raise wages of lower wage earners far more by keeping the 75% growth factor intact and adding to the tax factor. Son of a Bush was a disaster on both fronts -- he lowered the taxes on the rich and at the same time killed growth. We certainly don't want to take that path. Hillary provides a perfect balance between the two strategies and will help a lot more poor.

It is extremely important that the electorate does not go down the path of socialism which has been a documented failure and chooses Hillary Clinton's plan endorsed by Krugman and other top economists.

Money is not a zero sum game .... unless all growth drops to zero. Anyone who says otherwise is disingenuous.

[Motown_Johnny]

1. Another dishonest post from a Clinton supporter, why am I not shocked?

Your post isn't worth reading, so I didn't bother. Just the chart is enough to prove you are not even trying to be honest.









Please keep this garbage in the Clinton forum where it belongs.

[arcane1]

2. You're not missing anything.

Just a bunch of unsourced claims, sarcasm, and ignorance of how tax brackets work.

Same old apologist crap for the 1%.

[cosmicone]

6. Your charts purposely break down the brackets of income

to create a steep curve.

PLUS, you chose the worst years under the Bush administration to demonstrate your view. If you spread it to the Clinton years or extended into the 2008-2009 recessions, you'll see that the average changes have not been so dramatic. That is called "cherry picking data"

I am actually FOR raising taxes on the wealthy to a 42% nominal. I am simply against raising them to 90% as Bernie suggests.

[JonLeibowitz]

19. Bernie has not suggested a 90% top rate.

Can i pleasr have a source to where he said that?

[arcane1]

25. What are the brackets of income in your chart? It's not even based on the U.S. economy.

I pity the fools who fall for your shameless scam.

[Motown_Johnny]

118. Another dishonest post....

Those are not MY charts. They are all sourced. Accusing the CBO of "cherry picking data" just proves how dishonest you are.

It really is a shame that you can't find a way to support your candidate with an honest argument. It isn't surprising though, nobody can.

[George II]

138. There are hundreds if not thousands of charts out there that demonstrate similar data. You...

....decided to choose those.

Calling the poster "dishonest" isn't discussing the issue appropriately, why not just point out SPECIFICALLY what you see wrong with that post and her chart? Just a flat characterization of "dishonest" doesn't advance the discussion one whit.

[Motown_Johnny]

162. I spent maybe 5 seconds researching this.

You do a search and see which ones pop up first.

The sourced charts I used disprove the un-sourced chart in the OP. What more do you need?

[George II]

163. A second admission - first you say you didn't read the OP yet called it dishonest, and second....

...you spent 5 seconds "researching this".

And you still can't say, or don't want to say, what is "dishonest" about the OP.

[Motown_Johnny]

167. If someone told you dog shit tasted like strawberry cheesecake

how much time would you spend researching if that was true?

Edit to add:


Instead of attacking me for my honesty about my posts, why not try and make an honest argument against them?

All you are doing is proving what I said in my first response to the OP, that kind of garbage belongs in the Clinton forum. Nobody will challenge them there. In fact, it seems as if they will be praised.

[beam me up scottie]

168. !

[arcane1]

148. And notice they haven't come back to answer the MANY challenges to their lies.

Typical.

[Fawke Em]

18. Not only that, but

both Clinton supporters and Republicans (hmmm.... ) also pretend not to know what a marginal tax rate is when they discuss these numbers, either.

Now THAT is disingenuous.

A 90 percent top marginal tax rate doesn’t mean that if you make $450,000, you are going to pay $405,000 in federal income taxes. Americans have a well-documented trouble understanding the notion of marginal tax rates. The marginal tax rate is the amount you pay on your income above a certain amount. Right now, you pay the top marginal tax rate on every dollar you earn over $406,750. So if you make $450,000, you only pay the top rate on your final $43,250 in income.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/22/economists-tax-rich_n_6024430.html

Sanders' proposals are just fine and would end up costing the average person a lot less. Even if he implements the proposed tax of $2 to $8 a week in taxes for single-payer healthcare that would result in a monthly tax of about $32 a month. The average cost of healthcare insurance premiums is $235 (YMMV) a month, so that's a savings of $203 right there and that doesn't even include deductibles. Even if you add on another few dollars to fund paid medical leave, it's still a lot cheaper than what we currently pay for healthcare insurance alone.

Most Americans also would not see a huge increase in their 401K (which they wouldn't have to rely on as much if we lifted the Social Security cap to $250,000, which Sanders has proposed) costs either. Sanders plans to tax Wall Street speculation at a nickel a trade. The average American doesn't change their investment plans enough for that to even be an issue. The money collected from this tax would go to fund free college at public institutions, which would save Americans around $100,000 for a four-year degree.

So, while many Clintonites and Republicans yammer on about how "pie in the sky" these proposals are, they're also being disingenuous. They'll help most of us and take less of our hides in the long run.

[MrMickeysMom]

37. You make an excellent point right here...

Even if he implements the proposed tax of $2 to $8 a week in taxes for single-payer healthcare that would result in a monthly tax of about $32 a month. The average cost of healthcare insurance premiums is $235 (YMMV) a month

The only thing I'd add to the Wall Street Speculation nickel/trade is how much I'd like to see it added to high frequency trading, which should be outlawed, if you ask me.

[George II]

41. How can you call a post "dishonest" and "garbage" when you ADMIT that you didn't read it?

[NurseJackie]

124. I'm guessing that it's a thing. I've seen it before.

[Motown_Johnny]

169. The entire premise the OP is based on is false.

Everything built upon that false premise is, as I called it, garbage.

None of it is true and it is so obviously false that I was able to see it within a second or two of skimming the post. Notice the lack of sourcing. No links, etc.

Look back over this sub-thread. Do you see any links to anything which support the claims in the OP? Do you see any links to anything which disproves what I said in post #1?

There has been plenty of time for honest substantive evidence to be presented, yet none has been. The very best which has been offered is pointing out that the information I posted is not as current as it could be. Nothing that provides a clearer picture of the current conditions. No current information offered at all. Monty Python style contradictions would compare nicely to anything and everything offered by the Clinton supporters in this thread.


Yes, it is a thing. It is called "being able to grasp the obvious". I am glad that you have seen it before. I hope someday you are able to attempt it yourself.

[hueymahl]

44. Results of Your Jury Service

On Thu Dec 10, 2015, 10:09 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Another dishonest post from a Clinton supporter, why am I not shocked?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=892043

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling a DUer's post that expresses an opinion should NOT be called "dishonest". Can't we discuss the issues civilly and simply say how we disagree with someone without characterizing it and resorting to personal attacks?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 10, 2015, 10:17 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The OP is blatantly dishonest, why would I hide the proof of that dishonesty?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The poster calls him a liar and then admits he didn't read the post. Calling someone a liar on DU is a no no.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm tired of the hit pieces on either candidate.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The poster spoke truthfully and backed up his assertions with facts. The alerter may not like it, but truth is a complete defense.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[arcane1]

160. Another great jury that sees through the OP's bullshit

[George II]

137. That first chart is misleading and incomplete (and it's almost 10 years old) - is that intentional?

It only gives the average in an income group, not the top and bottom, and the X-scale isn't uniform.

One other thing, you do realize that Sanders is a part of the "5%" group, just about butting up against the "1%-ers".

[reformist2]

3. Sp don't look to government, look to more capitalism to make the poor better off??? Seriously?

[Armstead]

4. I disagree with you but a good post

I m typing on my cell phone so can't write a detailed counter argument explaining my disagreement.

But I do salute you for actually addressing an issue in a thoughtful and detailed way. This is the level of substantive debate and discourse there used to be more of on DU and we ought to have more of.

[Recursion]

5. Pickett and Wilkinson's "The Spirit Level" makes the counter argument

Let's grant arguendo that redistribution must come at the cost of growth (in reality, it can, but it need not in all cases): even granting that, you still get better outcomes on a host of social metrics with lower growth and lower inequality. That is to say, yes: people are better off if everybody is a little bit poorer but the rich are much less rich. Pareto is just wrong, empirically.

I think where they studied this matters: they looked at North America and Western Europe. That is, they were looking at populations that are already in about the top 15% of the world by income (if you're poorer than 95% of Americans you're still richer than 95% of Zambians or Bangladeshis). In that context, where there really are the resources to feed, clothe, and shelter everyone in the country, growth is only one of many factors that you need to consider, and in many ways equality of distribution can be as important or moreso. If I were talking about Zambia I would probably say, yeah: you need growth more than anything, right now, until you have the infrastructure to provide what people need. But once you do, growth starts to taper off in importance.

[cosmicone]

8. Your point is entirely valid

and Hillary's plan addresses that. She wants to do redistribution as well ... just not at the confiscatory levels proposed by Sanders.

No matter which one of the three great candidates we elect, redistribution will be a part of the equation. HOW and in what MAGNITUDE it is applied will determine the shock to the economy that will either spur growth, maintain growth or be detrimental to growth. Each option has consequences and reduction in growth will fare the worst.

[tazkcmo]

128. "She wants to do redistribution as well"

By taking Wall St money? I don't believe her anymore now than I did when she dodged sniper fire.

[cosmicone]

132. Read her economic plan.

Higher taxes to 42% for $250K and above, lower taxes for $250K and below.

If you remember, Bill Clinton didn't raise taxes all that much - he raised them to 39% nominal and created the best 8 years of prosperity in modern times.

Sanders' proposals, if passed, will choke the life out of the economy. 90% tax sounds good until it creates no new jobs.

[tazkcmo]

134. Read my response.

I don't believe her.

[thesquanderer]

146. re: "90% tax sounds good until it creates no new jobs."

First, the top rate was 91% from 1946 until 1964, a period which included lots of growth, both in GDP and in jobs. From then, it didn't drop below 70% until 1982.

Second, Sanders is not suggesting going as high as 90%. As you may remember from the second debate, he said,

"We haven't come up with an exact number yet, but it will not be as high as the number under Dwight D. Eisenhower which was 90 percent...I'm not that much of a socialist compared to Eisenhower."

So, no, not 90%.

[cosmicone]

147. 1946 to 1964 was when US was a net exporter of goods by 6:1 margin

Now it is a net importer of goods and services by a 1:2 margin.

There is nothing similar about today's economy. Apples and oranges.

[thesquanderer]

155. As noted, BS is NOT suggesting the 90%+ top rate of 1946-1964

That said, I would also suggest that there is no direct link (that I am aware of) between top marginal rate and the various factors that have led to the shift in import/export. Of course there are plenty of historical differences when talking about the economy (or just about anything, really) but that doesn't mean it is useless to look at the past. In some areas, like trade balance, things have shifted out of our favor. In other areas, the U.S. economy remains among the strongest. But to suggest that the tax rates of 1946 to 1964 would be unworkable today specifically because of the trade imbalance is a leap I'm not willing to make without some serious research to support that conclusion.

Though again, BS is not suggesting a return to those rates regardless.

[cosmicone]

156. I never suggested that marginal tax rates have an impact on export/import

only on economic growth rates.

[thesquanderer]

157. No, but you said that today's different economy with its trade imbalance...

...means that the tax rates that worked then could not work today.

That is not self-evident, at least to me, so I would want some supporting evidence.

[cosmicone]

158. Fair enough

Let's both find out what the effect is if any.

[Bread and Circus]

7. are you being sarcastic, this is the same bullshit fantasy they have been selling for 40 years

This is supply side Reagan Bullshit.

Please tell me you are joking.

[cosmicone]

9. This is not supply side

I am all for raising taxes on the wealthy just as Hillary Clinton. The idea is to raise them enough to create a balance between a hit to the economic growth vs reducing income inequality gradually over a decade.

[Scootaloo]

28. Yeah, actually you are talking TEXTBOOK supply-side economics, Cone

If you didn't realize that, well, fair enough I guess - but if so, you don't really need to try to lecture people about it, you know? But yes, your post is standard supply-side argument.

[cosmicone]

29. It is not ..

It advocates a tax rate slightly higher than prevalent in Bill Clinton's term, weighted heavily towards upper income brackets.

Bill Clinton's term created prosperity as well if you may recall.

Also, I take offense at your use of the word "cone" to address me.

[Scootaloo]

33. I suspect you may not understand the subject too very well

A tax rate slightly higher than Bill Clinton's era is still very low, and your logic for that idea over what you think Sanders said, amounts to "Low taxes for the wealthy means more money for everyone." It's supply-side, trickle-down, or as it is called nowadays "supporting the job-creators."

[cosmicone]

58. That is utterly ludicrous

So now I'm being called a supply sider because I'm asking for a lower tax rate than the Unicorn/Rainbow/Pixie dust tax rate?

So, Sanders would be a supply-sider in your book as compared to someone who is advocating a 95% tax rate?

[Scootaloo]

61. You're making a supply-side argument

What that makes you, personally, is someone making that argument. For all I know you're an anarcho-communist taking a bad argument for a joyride. But it's a bad argument nonetheless.

[cosmicone]

70. I did not. Not every argument against Sanders' unicorns

is a supply side argument. It is disingenuous to claim that it is.

[Scootaloo]

73. No, not every argument against Sanders' proposals is supply-side economics. But this one is.

Got anything aside from silly rhetoric about "unicorns" in there?

[WillyT]

10. It Worked Before... And Gave Us The Greatest Expansion Of The U.S. Economy For Over 40 years...

[cosmicone]

11. Different economic times

The US was a net exporter by a wide margin back in those days.

Now we carry a massive current accounts deficit and are a net importer by a wide margin.

Apples and oranges.

[WillyT]

14. Let's Give A Try...Start With A 75% Top Marginal Tax Rate... You Want A Break On Your Taxes ???

Tax Shelters... Roads, Bridges, Schools, All Infra-Structure, And ALL Safety Net programs.

You want to move your money off-shore ??? - No Protection from the U.S.

From Patents to ACTUAL protection... you are ON YOUR OWN.

And publish their names so we know who our economic traitors are.

And that's just a start...

[WillyT]

15. And Can You Please Explain Why This Wouldn't Work ???

Link: http://cpc-grijalva.house.gov/the-peoples-budget-a-raise-for-america/

[arcane1]

22. Because Hillary isn't proposing it n/t

[Betty Karlson]

110. And that's because we were Hell-Bent on making Germany and Japan big industrial export countries.

That way, our loyal allies (whom we controlled militarily and economically) could dominate their spheres of influence (West-Europe and East-Asia) by trade.

If we give up on the pipedreams called TTIP and TPP, the rationale for net imports will disappear.

[Juicy_Bellows]

12. Just curious - you're doing pretty well financially, eh?

It would explain the crazy optics you employ.

[JonLeibowitz]

20. There was a recent OP suggesting it is hard to get by on $250k!!!!

[Juicy_Bellows]

52. I saw that, whoa boy that was a wild one! Nt.

[PowerToThePeople]

13. A Republican message board, this is not.

Why are you posting this right wing nonsense?

[AgingAmerican]

16. Linkless factless Op

By yet another desperate Hill supporter.

[MrMickeysMom]

34. Results of your jury...

They'll alert you when you're doing anything these days, apparently...

On Thu Dec 10, 2015, 08:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Linkless factless Op
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=892184

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

personal attack that doesn't even attempt any critique of the content of the OP.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 10, 2015, 08:53 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There are no links in support of the OP. True. Leave it.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: personal attack
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Aging American is right. cosmicone is one of the most odious right wing trolls on DU and deserves to be dismissed.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Waste of time alert. The alerter has to be uber sensitive to take this as a personal attack. It constitutes 90% of what goes back and forth about the Democratic candidates. Grow some skin, or trash the thread, if you're going to be this sensitive.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerting for this reason is lazy. It's a poor post, yes. But. Challenge -- don't punish or censor -- low content posts.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[arcane1]

38. Thin the skin is these days. What a lame alert.

I'd LOVE for the alerter or anyone who recced this post to explain that graph

[MrMickeysMom]

39. Ooh! Ooh! I know...

Excel!

[cosmicone]

75. You mean you cannot refute it without links?

[JonLeibowitz]

79. Strange thing for you to say when your OP doesn't contain a single source or a y-axis unit.

We have no idea what the OP is even measuring.

A very ironic post, this one is. Thanks for the laugh!

[KingCharlemagne]

106. Could one in fact argue that the OP is projecting his own

disingenuousness onto Sanders? I will let the psychologists opine.

[AgingAmerican]

86. It means you have no source

Aka made it up.

[catnhatnh]

17. Muddled rubbish

and your chart makes me think you aren't even trying hard. Only one axis is defined as to units and why the hell is a Croatian Prime Minister used as a waypoint???

[arcane1]

24. And "global, between country, and within country" have nothing to do with income brackets.

The poster is deliberately trying to trick people who don't pay attention, just like Fox does.

In other words, the OP is knowingly telling lies.

[Scootaloo]

30. Ithink that might be the most delightfully surreal thing I've seen this week

And given that I've been flat on my ass with the flu and cough medication, that's saying something!

[madville]

21. Sanders is pretty safe with that angle

Most of what you mention could never get through Congress while he's hypothetically President. So it's relatively safe for him to promote it because it would never pass during his potential terms. Good for campaign speeches though.

[BainsBane]

27. Exactly

It's rhetoric, nothing more.

[Armstead]

31. It's only rhetoric as long as Democrats refuse to fight for it

[Hiraeth]

47. ^^^ this ^^^ we have a lot of work to do but, I want Bernie leading the way.

[BainsBane]

87. Fight for what exactly?

the great struggle to return American to 1950, when the people who mattered benefited from uncontested privilege and the ones that don't stayed in our place? By all means, fight for whatever you want, but don't pretend it has anything to do with improving the lives of the poor.

I'm supposed to fight to make sure the children of the upper-middle class have their education payed for by taxing union pension funds and teacher retirement plants, while leaving in place a horrendous unequal in K-12 system that leaves the poor woefully unprepared to take advantage of so-called "free" higher ed? That isn't my fight, and it's not social or economic justice.

Murder Inc doesn't need me or the Democratic Party to fight to ensure they continue to benefit from the immunity that enables them to reap unfettered profits from the gun violence taking place in communities like mine. I won't be fighting for Lockheed Martin to continue to receive $800+ Billion in corporate welfare for the F-35. And I will not be urging the Democratic Party to join the GOP "fighting" to arm the Minutemen and build a Wall, to blame brown-skinned people for unemployment or the mentally ill for gun violence.

For months many here have made clear that I and anyone else whose political consciousness was not bound to Sanders' political success was the enemy. We are "corporatists," "shills," "camp weather vane," hate mongers, or suffering from Stockholm Syndrome--all because we dare to imagine that we get to assert some of our own interests and not simply fall in line behind those who are certain that their concerns paramount and ours inconsequential.

Whatever you are fighting for, it has been made very clear for some time that I, and in fact the majority of Democrats who don't prioritize Sanders' political success above all else, are the enemy. After months of sowing enmity, it's too damn late to pretend we are fighting for any common cause, particularly when I don't believe that fight has anything to do with poverty or the interests of the majority of Americans.

I don't agree with the OPs economic analysis, but I have seen far too much disrespect and even contempt expressed toward large segments of the population to want to have anything to do with those voicing such views.

[Armstead]

122. First of all....

It is not like some cult formed because Bernie appeared as some Messianic figure.

Rather, Sanders is expressing and anger that has been building up on a widespread basis for years, as the Democratic leadership as epitomized by the Clintons, pushed the Democratic Party to the right towards Reaganesque corporate conservative positions, and did everything they could to marginalize liberalism on all but a few select "social issues."

I don't know how long you've been on DU, but that tension has been an underlying theme since it started. It has taken many different forms around different issues and candidates, but the overall issue has been consistent. And it's not simply "purists" versus moderates. A moderate and a progressive have the same goals, but just differ on pace and extent. Those are managable diffeences. The real tension has been between liberals/progressives and "centrists" whop push conservatism such as deregulation, "free trade" privatization, fiscal hawks (cut Social Security and oter programs)...etc.

Regarding the "insults." That has also been a two way street. While it would be preferable for all sides in disagreements were civil, and didn't attack personally, that is not only coming from one side.

People who criticize the centrist leadership or specific actions or policies are accused of "hating," "attacking" (Obama or Clinton whomever), or of "whining" or wanting "ponies" and not accepting "reality" etc. In the current context that has been added to with terms like "racist," "worshiper" "Berniebro" etc. And hostility generates hostility. It's a feedback loop, rather than one side being "mean" and the otehr side being "nice."

As to your characterization of the agenda -- gun control is smoke and mirrors. On the vast majority of the gun control issue, Sanders and Clinton and O'Malley have the same goals and agenda. One can legitimately disagree with some of Sanders votes on that, but overall he and the overall Democratic Party are on the same page....As for the defense stuff, you are applying an extreme double standard. You think Bernie doing a little porkbarrel politics to get a piece of a pre-determined military project is awful, while the Democratic estabishment's much larger ties to the Military Industrial Complex, and support for true warmongering is okay? That is cognitive dissonance.

So when it comes to how people behave here....."those who live in glass houses..."

[LexVegas]

23. He's unfit to lead. nt

[MrMickeysMom]

40. Wait...

Lemme write that one down, okay? Thanks.

[Kentonio]

113. You must not have received the memo

Today any attacks on Bernie are supposed to include the word disingenuous.

[Scootaloo]

26. Thank you for the dissertation on trickle-down economics, Cone

It's good to know where people stand on important things.

[JonLeibowitz]

43. I dare say that puts the issue at rest. Piketty can go home, his field is done.

Oh yeah,

[cosmicone]

55. That is NOT trickle down economics and any statement to that effect is untrue

Trickle down = lower taxes on the wealthy in the hopes that it will trickle down to the poor

I am saying RAISE taxes on the wealthy -- just not to 90% AND lower taxes on the poor and middle class.

Raise taxes enough so that it doesn't strangle economic growth which is the main engine of income raises for the poor.

That is Hillary's plan. Sensible, cogent and supported by economists.

[Scootaloo]

60. Re-phrasing the argument doesn't make the argument any different

The argument you make is that a lower top tax rate = economic growth for the people in those brackets = benefit to the poor (somehow)

It's the same we've been hearing since Hayek.

[cosmicone]

74. In either directon of tax rates

the law of diminishing returns applies.

Too low and there is no growth (as the current state is), too high and there is no growth (the unicorn plan)

The sweet spot is between 42 and 48% -- it is what people get PhDs on instead of casting aspersions on DU.

[Scootaloo]

85. I'm not casting aspersions, I'm describing the argument you're using.

[catnhatnh]

32. Care to defend your chart???

because it really does make you seem deceitful...

[Thinkingabout]

35. Taking more money from the poor who are struggling already is not going to help them to care

For their families. People on low wages are,a long way from $174,000 annually and they have to pay more for health insurance than the small amount congressional members has to pay.

I was happy some years ago to move to Texas where there is not a state income tax, little did I realize there was more property taxes than the state in on tax I was paying before. And with income tax I could file a return and get some money back, not so with property tax.

[Kentonio]

114. Who is taking more money from the poor exactly?

[Thinkingabout]

115. The tax proposals.

[Kentonio]

123. The ones that pay higher wages, then tax a tiny amount

While removing the need for large health insurance payments? Those ones you mean?

[Thinkingabout]

125. Taking away from the struggling people is a burden. Terrible proposal. He has

Said he has nit figured out how high the taxes will go, does not leave a warn fuzzy feeling. The tax you talk about will be on everyone, nit just those with higher wages. It will nit be on those who has dividends, royalties and interest, like Romney.

[Kentonio]

126. Sorry

But pointing at one part of a huge plan while ignoring the rest is simply dishonest. We're talking about marginal tax rates, so no the poor will not be hit in the same way as the rich. Also, the benefits provided far outweigh the small addition of tax.

[Thinkingabout]

127. I am not worried, it will not happen.

[JaneyVee]

36. As an economist I agree completely

I don't think he realizes where money actually comes from.

[MrMickeysMom]

42. True or False:

Taxing financial trades have been hailed by many finance ministers in Europe as a way of curtailing high-frequency trading and speculation.

One more True or False: HF trading is seen as damaging European economies.

[cascadiance]

142. And we already had that kind of tax up until the 60's when it got dropped...

... because the SEC (which was funded by that tax) was viewed as getting a surplus of revenue in those days it didn't need.

We certainly weren't hurt by this sort of tax up until the 60's when the economy at that time was doing very well with the 90% tax rates, etc.

And this was the era before high frequency computerized trading, which is what Bernie is proposing will be most hit by this sort of taxation, not the less frequent MORE LEGITIMATE trading that is less about speculation and gambling and more about real investment trading. Taxing the high frequency trading by this tax will have two effects, both of them positive.

Generate a lot of revenue for something like free college tuition, where that money becomes more of a real investment in our economy rather than going back to the high frequency trading gamblers that are basically getting rich off the rest of us and keeping their profits stashed off shore to avoid taxation.

By taxing each trade more, it will force those speculation artists to try and rethink their game and not rely so much on high frequency trading, which will be made a lot more expensive, and make what they are doing a lot less rewarding for them, and the net effect of them trading less will basically restore our stock trading economy to reflect more an accurate rating of each company's long term investment value, and not its short term gambling value.

[MrMickeysMom]

164. This explains the need for it, doesn't it?

Frankly, I didn't think JaneyVee was going to hang her hat on that nail and glad you did.

[JonLeibowitz]

46. As an economist, how can you agree without a y-axis unit or even a reference?? n/t

[Hiraeth]

48. because she only plays one on the internet.

[JaneyVee]

51. Uh, no. It's my job. Accounting. Balancing budgets. What do you do?

[Matariki]

54. Accountant != "Economist"

lol

[JaneyVee]

56. I have 2 economic degrees and I'm a UPM in the DGA union.

[Matariki]

59. And so you're arguing in favor of this nonsense OP

merely because it is anti-Sanders.

[JonLeibowitz]

63. Come now, she agrees with the OP! Despite having no idea what the y-axis represents!

Or whether it was created in excel 5 hours ago just for this OP.

[Scootaloo]

65. Hey, be fair to JaneyVee!

No one on this thread knows what that Y-axis is measuring!

[Matariki]

77. Milanovic!!!

[JaneyVee]

64. Where am I arguing? You seem to be the only one doing that.

I made a post and left it. You decided to argue.

[Matariki]

66. Picking on a word while ignoring the point is called deflection

[JaneyVee]

71. What exactly are you even talking about? Do you have a question for me?

This is getting weird.

[Matariki]

80. "As an economist I agree completely"

You object to the word "arguing". Let's just call it 'supporting' the nonsense OP.

[JaneyVee]

83. I thought I made that obvious.

How did this go from being about Bernie's economic policy to my economic policy?

[JonLeibowitz]

57. I do math for a living and study finance and economics on the side. And I can assure you that

accounting and balancing budgets are not the appropriate background to make such a judgement.

(Not that I am qualified to give close to an expert opinion either)

[JaneyVee]

68. I have a much more extensive background than..

Just accounting and balancing budgets. That's what pays the bills. And I do it for multi-million dollar projects. I also have 9 employees that work for me in my department.

[JonLeibowitz]

76. But anything with expert level knowledge of markets or macro type stuff?

I mean, what you do is fantastic, don't get me wrong, but some skills are just not transferrable across subfields.

[JaneyVee]

82. Lets just say, I've dabbled in the stock market.

[JonLeibowitz]

84. Er, yeah, no, that's not going to suffice. Anybody with a little money can do that.

Now if you were to say you make a sustained(>10-15 years, i.e. most market conditions) post-tax post-fees return that exceeds the broad market benchmark, that might mean something.

But it still wouldn't necessarily qualify you to talk about macroeconomics, unless you focused on certain specific areas of the market.

[bobbobbins01]

105. This is almost as bizarre as the OP

So you think being an accountant who dabbled in the stock market makes you fit to call yourself an economist? Do you have any real credentials to present?

[Warren Stupidity]

139. I have 12 phd's and four nobel prizes!

[bobbobbins01]

141. I carry my astronaut application in my wallet.

I failed everything but the date of birth.

[Hiraeth]

69. Nurses for Bernie.

[blackspade]

91. She stayed at a Holiday Inn Express don't cha know?

[ibegurpard]

93. huzzah!

[JaneyVee]

49. I'm referring to his economic policy, not the charts.

[JonLeibowitz]

67. Do you have experience/do research in the area of macroeconomics w/ graduate degrees(pref. PhD)?

Or Markets?

Economics is quite broad.

[JaneyVee]

78. Yes, I have 2 economic degrees. No, neither are PHDs.

I've thought about eventually going for it but I graduated, found a job that pays me well, and now I have 2 kids 7 and 4. But possibly one day not any time soon.

[JonLeibowitz]

81. Got it. Yeah the thing I have heard is that you have to do the Ph.D. when you have no

responsibilities because otherwise it just won't happen.

I'm in one for Applied Math (brother in Econ) and I cannot imagine having any real outside life, so I believe it. Well, except for politics

[Scootaloo]

50. Money comes from the US Department of the Treasury, and several mints and printers

Maybe you meant wealth? Kind of an odd mistake for an economist-by-trade.

Let's assume so.

Please educate all us ignorant rubes where "money" comes from.

[JonLeibowitz]

62. A qualification is to have a Ph.D (roughly), and no that is not an exaggeration.

And that's before we get into published research. I do indeed wonder if JaneyVee is an "economist".

[AgingAmerican]

88. The other day you said you would vote for Trump if Sanders was the nominee

Now you are a supply side economist?

Please tell us how increasing the top marginal rate to 90% gave us almost 50 years of full employment, without boom and bust cycles, Ms economist? It is basic economic theory. Waiting...

[Warren Stupidity]

130. As chairman of the fed I disagree.

Trump that!

[Warren Stupidity]

144. An actual economist says "um no".

Here

[Hiraeth]

45. Bet I can guess what tax bracket you are in.

[Matariki]

53. Fess up, this is David Koch's secret DU account, right?

"It is easy to tell a bunch of hungry people that people living in the big mansion are eating steak or lobster. It is human nature to begrudge people who have more, especially when one is struggling. It is also an incendiary argument that those people in the mansion have more because they took it from you. You should be eating the steak and lobster because you are the ones who earned it for those people"

[cosmicone]

95. As a consummate liberal, I find your characterization insulting

But ... you cannot refute the economics like many people have done so you'll attack the messenger. Not surprising.

[Matariki]

101. Making stuff up doesn't make you a "messenger"

[cosmicone]

102. So what does that make you

for making up a post that I was David Koch?

I'll let your conscience answer it.

[Warren Stupidity]

154. you post a defense of the status quo, this neoliberal thatcherite nightmare we are stuck in

and demand to be deferred to as some sort of liberal? I guess you have a point as an economic neoliberal is *some* sort of liberal.

[arcane1]

161. And they STILL won't own up to their fake chart.

[beam me up scottie]

109. LMAO!

[Truprogressive85]

72. Oh

Either Sanders is ignorant of or is nefariously ignoring the fact that wealth is created from economic growth so people who become rich don’t take a bigger piece of the same pie but make the pie larger. Mark Zuckerberg’s or Larry Paige’s billions didn’t come at the expense of people in Peoria – they created them. Not only that, while they and others like Bill Gates became billionaires, tens of thousands of ordinary people became millionaires as well. This growth has created an economic boom near their companies and builders, real estate agents, carpenters, construction workers and limo drivers are all prospering because of their success

Can you tell me how much taxes the people you metioned paid in personal taxes or how much taxes paid thier companies paid?

[cosmicone]

97. That is not relevant

What is relevant is that they didn't become rich at the expense of the poor -- they created new intellectual property and became rich while making thousands of their co-employees rich as well.

[William769]

89. Kick & highly recommended!

[blackspade]

90. A ridiculous counterfactual post.

A post that ignores both historical social processes and current economic realities.

[restorefreedom]

92. just to clarify one of your points

bernie is NOT arguing that all people should be able to eat steak and lobster.

he is arguing that all people should be able to eat.

[cosmicone]

94. Then why bring up billionaires?

Just highlight that poor people are suffering ... all the talk about banksters, oligarchs, plutocrats, billionaires is just that -- steak and lobsters.

[restorefreedom]

96. becsuse the billionaires are the problem.

they hide their money offshore and get away with paying less in tax proportionately than most workers. if they paid their fair share we would have the money for more useful and helpful programs for all.

[cosmicone]

98. You think all billionaires hide their money offshore?

I have news for you.

Most billionaires don't have their money in a bank account. It is in the form of stock in their companies. It is "paper wealth" that depends upon the value of the stock and fluctuates with the value of the stock.

I know one billionaire who makes about $250K a year and cannot prosper unless his locked-up (Section 144) stock can be sold.

Bernie and his supporters need to understand that most of the billionaires on Forbes list don't have their billions in the form of CASH.

[restorefreedom]

99. then i guess the 20 trillion

is just loose sofa change...

http://www.alternet.org/economy/how-banks-help-super-rich-hide-over-20-trillion-offshore-accounts

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/23/super-rich-hide-21-trillion-offshore-study-says/

[cosmicone]

100. That money is owned by companies - not by individuals

Bernie can successfully manipulate people with corporate money vs individual billionaires but I won't be fooled.

The money owned by corporations is owned by stockholders like mutual funds which have a lot of ordinary people's 401Ks and retirement savings.

Try again or may I suggest a course in economics?

[Truprogressive85]

103. Amazing

you do know majority "ordinary" Americans are not in markets

[cosmicone]

104. They may not be by themselves

but they are indirectly through IRAs, 401-Ks, corporate and union retirement plans etc.

Also, even if they are not by virtue of any of the above, their employer's fortunes and thus their jobs depend upon healthy corporate finances.

Please try again.

[zigby]

166. A full THIRD of Americans have NO retirement income

Go try telling someone taking out a payday loan to buy groceries about locked up stocks, vesting periods. etc.

[restorefreedom]

129. both corps and individuals

have become expert at hiding money from taxes, its a well known reality. and if you seriously think you are going to get an iota of sympathy for billionaires while most of the country (and world) struggles as they gorge on their wealth, then i think you might be in the wrong place.

but you are free to keep trying!

[cosmicone]

131. I am trying to get sympathy for poor people

who will suffer under Sanders' draconian ideas which will kill growth.

Billionaires don't need my sympathy -- they will take care of themselves.

[restorefreedom]

136. ahhh so you are a fan of trickle down

more breaks for the "job creators"

its clear by now that these republican admired policies hurt the poor even more.

but no worries, pres sanders will make sure wealth does not continue to be concentrated in the hands of a few plutocrats

[Sancho]

120. You are exactly correct...

there is a lot of wealth offshore, and international banks are used to move the money, but the endpoint for most of that wealth are various investments! Much comes back to stock investments. More than ever, those investments and companies are international.

Hillary has proposed working with international partners to regulate manipulations, but simple "income taxes" on the wealthy in the US would be pretty inconsequential.

Tearing down Wall Street would be throwing out the baby with the bath.

[Eric J in MN]

107. Is that a worldwide chart?

In the US:

1979: Top 1% had 10.5% of the income.
2007: Top 1% had 21% of the income.

http://www.propublica.org/article/the-u.s.s-growing-income-gap-by-the-numbers

[beam me up scottie]

108. 2 ops from a place of privilege about Bernie being "disingenuous"...oh, I get it. It's today's word!

[Betty Karlson]

111. The 1 % is starting to clutch its pearls.

Sanders is having more and more of an impact.

[beam me up scottie]

112. Eeek! Bernie's gonna take my yacht and give it to a homeless guy!

[aikoaiko]

117. I don't have faith in this pro-Wall Street plan.

It never seems to work out well for the lower and middle classes.

[Sancho]

119. Great OP...and Bernie is missing the boat on some other points. Thanks cosmicone !

As the OP points out - what should the US do now? Bernie says tear down Wall Street, break up the banks, and tax the rich.

First, much of the "bad behavior" was not in banks, and Hillary has pointed this out. Next, most large banks are not in the US, so it's hard to tax money that's not in the US or US banks. On the main street level, Hillary has proposed some ideas that are actually excellent. Those plans are frequently targeting "social justice" and not simply "economic justice." Most of the complaints that Bernie espouses are main street economics, and his solutions sound good, but are not realistic and would not be effective. Hillary's plan is much more likely to have a meaningful, long-term effect and encourage US investment.

In short, and not in any particular order:

Hillary has proposed regulations that include banks and all forms of bad behavior with investor companies.
Hillary would use federal law and government contracting to encourage profit sharing to raise salaries.
Hilary has proposed salary transparency (mostly so that women could obtain equal pay).
Hillary would make it harder to move money offshore.
Hillary would strengthen the ability to organize unions (which explains the overwhelming union endorsements).
Hillary provides a path to citizenship for 30-40 million people stuck in the underground and abusive US economy today.
Hillary would work with international partners and regulators to deal with the currency and investment manipulations.

An idea worth studying is the lastest Nobel prize winning theory of international capitalism related to the OP:

The Economics of Inequality
by Thomas Piketty (Author), Arthur Goldhammer (Translator)

As stated before, breaking up US banks would do nothing. Closing tax loopholes might help a little. Most big banks are not in the US, and most influential money is not in the US. The US can't "break up" international banks. Most union-negotiated retirement funds and public employee funds are in Wall Street investments. Tearing down or taxing (FTTs) those funds will not help your average worker while large investors would avoid the FTTs anyway! That's another reason that unions don't like Bernie's Robin Hood tax. Here are some links to think about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks

1 China Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)
2 China China Construction Bank Corporation
3 United Kingdom HSBC Holdings
4 China Agricultural Bank of China
5 United States JPMorgan Chase & Co.
6 France BNP Paribas
7 China Bank of China
8 Japan Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group
9 France Crédit Agricole Group
10 United Kingdom Barclays PLC
11 United States Bank of America
12 Germany Deutsche Bank
13 United States Citigroup Inc
14 Japan Japan Post Bank
15 United States Wells Fargo
16 Japan Mizuho Financial Group
17 United Kingdom Royal Bank of Scotland Group
18 China China Development Bank
19 France Société Générale
20 Spain Banco Santander

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/wealthy-stashing-offshore_n_3179139.html

Global Super-Rich Stashing Up To $32 Trillion Offshore, Masking True Scale Of Inequality: Study

The global super-rich are stashing trillions of dollars offshore with the help of some of the world's biggest banks, putting billions of dollars out of the taxman’s reach and masking wealth inequality's true heights.

Wealthy people were hiding between $21 and $32 trillion in offshore jurisdictions around the world as of 2012, according to a 2012 study from the Tax Justice Network, an organization which aims to promote tax transparency. The study, highlighted by a recent Bloomberg News report, found that more than $12 trillion of that money was managed by 50 international banks, many of which received bailouts during the financial crisis, according to James Henry, the study’s author.

“There’s a lot more missing wealth in the world than we had known about from previous estimates,” Henry told The Huffington Post. “The real scandal is not all these individual scandals but the fact that world’s policy makers who know about this stuff, have basically done nothing.”

http://www.davispolk.com/dodd-frank/

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The legislation marks the greatest change to the financial landscape in decades, affecting the regulation of domestic and foreign financial institutions, banking entities and commercial companies. Many of the Dodd-Frank Act's provisions rely heavily on rulemaking and interpretation by financial regulators. Since Dodd-Frank's enactment, Davis Polk has offered a growing suite of resources to help institutions and market participants understand and comply with the new requirements and stay informed about recent rules, regulator studies, important dates and upcoming deadlines in the implementation process.

SOLVING THE "TOO BIG TO FAIL" PROBLEM: RESOLUTION AUTHORITY VS. CHAPTER 14
On June 20, 2012, Davis Polk lawyers Randall Guynn and John Douglas spoke on a teleforum entitled, “Solving the ‘Too Big to Fail’ Problem: Resolution Authority vs. Chapter 14.” The event was hosted by The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies’ Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group, and explores the Too Big to Fail problem in the post-Dodd-Frank era.

http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/solving-the-too-big-to-fail-problem-resolution-authority-vs-chapter-14-podcast

http://www.c-span.org/video/?327191-3/washington-journal-roundtable-doddfrank-financial-law

[GeorgeGist]

121. Baffling bullshit.

[bowens43]

133. more ridiculous crap probably passed to the true believers by hills handlers

we already know that hill intends to shit on the poor and middle class...thats how she roles

[cosmicone]

135. Thank you. However, I don't need spoon-feeding

because I happen to have my own brain to analyze what is going on.

Perhaps you'd have a better rebuttal from HA Goodman or someone?

[Matariki]

143. It is seriously baffling to see people defending Reaganonmics in this thread.

And disturbing to see that they are all Clinton supporters. I don't know if it's because they really believe it of if it's just a knee-jerk anti Sanders response.

[arcane1]

150. "Whatever It Takes" is the unofficial campaign slogan.

For some, it's their entire role to be contrary, no matter where it leads them. It's their job, even when they suck at it.

[Warren Stupidity]

140. The Massachusetts Bay Colony made it illegal to feed indentured servants lobster

more than twice a week.

That bit of trivia has more relevance to our current economic situation than your ridiculous neoliberal screed.

[Matariki]

152. lobster used to be 'prison food'.

So more than twice a week would have been considered cruel.

More trivia, and still more relevant than the OP

[thesquanderer]

145. Your "zero sum game" premise is plain wrong.

Considering how often he says these kinds of things, you must have heard Sanders say for example,

"58 percent of all new income since the Wall Street crash has gone to the top one percent."

That's *new* income. In a zero sum game, there would be no such thing as "new" income.

Sanders' has never suggested a zero sum perspective, and to say that he has is, well, disingenuous.

You also make a leap of logic when you take his statement that says if necessary, it would be worth trading off some economic growth to get a system that is more fair overall, and extrapolate that to saying that reducing income inequality must necessarily mean reducing economic growth, which is not a given. And again, nowhere does he indicate that 0% growth (there's that zero sum again!) would be desirable.

But even if growth is reduced under his plan, I think it's worth reading his entire answer there in context:

HARWOOD: If the changes that you envision in tax policy, in finance, breaking up the banks, were to result in a more equitable distribution of income, but less economic growth, is that trade-off worth making?

SANDERS: Yes. If 99 percent of all the new income goes to the top 1 percent, you could triple it, it wouldn't matter much to the average middle class person. The whole size of the economy and the GDP doesn't matter if people continue to work longer hours for low wages and you have 45 million people living in poverty. You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don't think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on. People scared to death about what happens tomorrow. Half the people in America have less than $10,000 in savings. How do you like that? That means you have an automobile accident, you have an illness, you're broke.

So the question there is, what's better... say, 3% economic growth where 99% of the new income goes to the top 1%? Or 2% economic growth, in a system that better takes care of everyone else? Sanders would say the latter, and it sounds like you would say the former. And you're entitled to your position, but not to misrepresent his.

As for your question, "If reducing income inequality must necessarily mean reducing economic growth, who decides what’s to be done and implements the necessary sacrifices?" Well, again "must necessarily" is something you made up, but even allowing for that, the "who decides" would be "the market." When economic policies of any administration (or other forces out of their control) result in lower growth, no one officialy "decides" where to target the hit (except perhaps in areas related to government spending), it's just what the market does.

[cosmicone]

151. Thank you for a well-thought-out post

I appreciate it.

It is well-known that tax rates affect economic growth. The sweet-spot is somewhere around 42% as Hillary is proposing. Law of diminishing returns applies as one goes away from the peak of the Gaussian distribution.

Our tax rates are too low at the moment, making government borrow money and thus driving credit markets virtually dry. We definitely need an increase in taxes and if Sanders proposed a tax rate that is in the sweet spot, he would be able to redistribute the excess and more if he cut military spending.

However, near-Eisenhower tax rates like he is proposing and also tax on lower income people are regressive and will choke economic growth, reducing creation of new employment and will hurt the very people he wants to help. I am not against Sanders' intent as some responses indicated -- just his strategy to get there.

JFK reduced tax rates to sensible levels and created a second economic boom just as Singapore, UK, Japan and Germany were cutting into America's export markets. Now, it is even more critical because we are competing with far more countries for a share of the export pie.

Bill Clinton raised the nominal rates to 39% and created the largest economic boom in the latter half of the century. Hillary is proposing a 42% rate which will probably be even better. Anything over 50% gives diminishing returns no matter how good it sounds on paper.

[thesquanderer]

159. 42% is the sweet spot? I'm not sure everyone agrees...

...and of course, it matters where you set the tax brackets, too.

Anyway, let's consider some particulars.

You posted that HRC's top rate would be 42% for $250K and above; and that anything over 50% gives diminishing returns; and that the kind of plan BS is proposing will make poor people poorer.

So let's say, for the sake of argument, that BS were to propose, say, 45% for $250k to $500k, 50% for personal income between $500k and a million, 55% for personal income over a million, 60% over 2 million. Are you saying that that difference (compared to Hillary's straight 42% over 250k) would make poor people poorer? I think that would be conjecture at best. Maybe Bernie's plan will be more aggressive than that... or maybe it would be less. He hasn't provided specifics yet. But that's part of the point... to knock it as inherently unworkable without knowing the specifics is, well, disingenuous. (And I do hope we hear more details before too long!)

I'm not endorsing any approach here; I'm just skeptical that having higher-than-50% rates for people in increasingly high brackets is inherently disasterous as you suggest. Especially when we've had such rates before, albeit yes, in different economies of different times.

As for increasing tax on people making less than $250k, as I understand it, this would be in adjustments to the payroll tax as opposed to the income tax. A very small (.2%) increase covers family leave. The possibility of a larger increase in the (unlikely in the short term) event that a single payer health system is implemented would be offset by not having to pay private health insurance premiums (or a penalty for declining to carry private health insurance).

Honestly, I don't know for sure whose economic plan will be best. However, I seriously doubt any plan from either of them is going to be cause to start saying the sky is falling. Nor is anyone's plan ever going to be cast in stone without the possibility of adjustment if things aren't going as planned. That being the case, I lean toward Sanders' because I believe in his goals. The particuars can always be adjusted.

and p.s. -- thanks for appreciating my posts, and responding in kind.

[Romulox]

149. Hillary supporters: the new Tax Protesters and "Reagan Democrats".

[Orsino]

153. The economy designed by and for the billionaires IS a zero-sum game. OPfail.

Sanders' platform best addresses methods by which wealth and therefore power could be re-redistributed.

[Ron Green]

165. When will we DARE TO QUESTION ECONOMIC GROWTH

as measured by GDP, for God's sake? GDP is a TERRIBLE indicator of all kinds of harmful economic activity that has nothing to do with human happiness, yet is assumed to be a benchmark to be pursued.

This OP is the kind of crap from which we need to escape, to turn away from Empire and toward a true Earth Community. Among presidential candidates only Bernie Sanders will even speak this language. Trump resists it loudly, Hillary sotto voce. But we can't afford this resistance any longer.