gamerforlifeforever2 : Even though Joe Biden gives Bernie praise but not Hillary?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/politics/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-income-inequality/index.html

janus : Ya, I think he might just be too young to really evaluate. Oh well.

Txgangsta : One can live their entire lives ignorant of something,so my age isn't relevant when all one has to do is research.

Txgangsta : My thoughts exactly. He was born after the fall of USSR.

Supermatt6534 : I HAVE debunked your questioning, talking about incentives. But since you seem to need more...

Socialism has been shown to be wrong in theory because there are no prices in 1923: https://mises.org/library/socialism-economic-and-sociological-analysis

and in practice with the USSR, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Germany, North Korea...

For your information, I indeed disagree with tax loopholes; they change incentives, as I have been talking about. The best solution would be to decrease, or better yet abolish, taxes since you are NOT entitled to that money. Saying that a tax cut "costs" money betrays a highly (objectivist) altruist mentality

janus : The Soviet Union is irrelevant to this.You haven't debunked anything,you even made a claim that  socilism fails,yet ignored that the starting post showed that top economists agree with Bernie.That's Communism,not Democratic Socialism(which has capitalism).Again,if Socialism fails,Denmark wouldn't be so successful.That is nonsense.Taxes are what keeps the country running & are in the constitution:
https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/what-constitution-says-about-taxation
Did you not read what I presented?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/bush-era-tax-cuts-revenue-expire_n_1828657.html

Supermatt6534 :

Denmark isn't that successful. It's GDP growth rate has been .36% for a 15 year average. Here's a chart of Denmark, US, Switzerland, and Sweden. Denmark is the least successful of the four.

Socialism, meaning big government, is just fine. I don't have a problem with that. You see Russia now and China now and that's basically what they do, and are fairly successful at it. Maybe the US could use that in certain areas where the free market isn't optimal. But that's not what's really at debate.

Socialism, meaning welfare state or mass redistribution of wealth, is horribly problematic. If you win the lotto, you're 1.4 billion turns into 524,272,000 after cash option and taxes. If you could earn 1.4 billion and instead keep 1 billion, wouldn't that be better? Of course it would. Now, what if your company makes 1.4 billion, but after taxes you only get to keep 524,272,000? Or you could leave the country and instead keep 1 billion? Every businessman would make that move if they could.

And companies are already doing this. Canada's Corporate Tax is less than the US, and companies like Burger King are already moving.

Redistribution of wealth sounds great, but if it isn't done carefully you lose the wealth of the rich for benefit to the rest.

Txgangsta : Isn't that successful?It's listed as the best country for business in what I provided earlier.I don't think it should be completely like other countries,just take what works & ignore what doesn't.You only need a couple million to live comfortably.That's the thing,they shouldn't be able to easily avoid taxes.Never said socialism is flawless,I don't think anything is.

Supermatt6534 : Please, remind me what USSR stand for. And what Vladimir Lenin said about socialism.

Also, your argumentum ad populum does not hold water. Even if 99 percent of "economists" supported Bernie Sanders' policies, they are bound to be a failure. With the VERY great exception of Norway, high-tax jurisdictions perform worse than low-tax ones. Just look inside the U.S.: California and Illinois are emptying out (from internal migration) because of their high tax and regulatory burden. And people wanting to renounce their citizenship is so high that fees have quadrupled.

And quite frankly, who ARE you to judge how much one needs? Besides, an economy grows with investment, not spending. The rich you so loathe are the ones who develop the new technologies (through their savings) we will not be able to live without tomorrow.

janus : Not all Socialism is Communism.He didn't come up with Socialism,Marx did.Also that's like saying



feminism was originally meant for equal rights,therefore all modern



feminists are for equal rights,but that is not always the case.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism

That is not a fallacious argument.An economist is a professional in the social science discipline of economics,meaning they are suppose to know what they are talking about.You have yet to prove they don't.Do you not read?I already addressed the problem of people running from taxes & California has one of the strongest economies in the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
http://www.ccsce.com/PDF/Numbers-July-2014-CA-Economy-Rankings-2013.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/california-blue-state-boom-state_b_7611694.html

Don't know why the links aren't lighting up.You'll have to copy & paste them.There are also other factors to things like that(i.e. California's drought).

It's not hard to research how much one needs to live comfortably & pay for expenses.Don't give me this job creator nonsense,jobs & services come about from demand.How much of what I presented did you actually read?Because you are acting like you have not even looked at it.

Supermatt6534 :

I don't think you understood what I communicated. It's the "best country of business", but businesses aren't flocking to Denmark. Their GDP has only changed .36%. That's not a lot. That means their businesses aren't actually growing.

And the wealthy don't easily avoid taxes. That's a lie that has been communicated to you. They income of the 1% is 25%, but they pay 37% of income tax. That's including the "tax breaks" and the "loopholes". They're still paying more. Do you just want them to pay more than more? And what do you think they do with the rest of their money? Do you think they use it to wipe their butt? No, they spend it, and it circulates in the economy.

I fear your belief here is emotional, not rational. Maybe I should start using emotional appeals rather than rational appeals?

My parents grew up with nothing. My Mom's parents were both teachers and only my Dad's dad worked. They actually had to borrow money to keep paying the mortgage on their house shortly after they bought it. They couldn't afford the house and me. But my parents worked like crazy. My mom taught school and taught swim lessons on the side. My dad did random architecture/design work and built websites on the side. They didn't choose to have free weekends or big vacations because they were busy building their future and my future. My dad ended up getting a job making websites and other coding from NASA because of his freelancing skills, and we almost immediately stopped being poor. In 1994-5 we moved out of the 1960s house we were staying in and lived in something much nicer. We stopped driving the same old cars and were able to buy a new van. My mom used most of our extra income to boost her swim lesson business and start two more. We got our own pool, and my mom no longer had to pay rent to use other people's pools. We got a pure bred labrador and bred her to start our dog breeding business (no, it's not a puppy mill). She also began taking horse back riding lessons for fun, but now she teaches riders herself. My parents have worked very, very hard for what they have. Yet, policies like what you propose would tear apart their efforts. What they've put into retirement wouldn't exist if they chose the business efforts instead. My parents already have to retire late, but if you were to raise taxes on them, they would have to work into their early 70s. How much do my parents have to do to retire well? How much will I have to do to retire well? I've got 20k in school debt, and I plan to save and work like crazy until I'm rich too. But I'll need a retirement of 1 million. That's actually not a lot. If I retire at 65, and think I'll die at 85, that means I only have 50k per year to spend. That's above poverty, but not actually "well off". How much do I need to work? Or should I simply be shackled? High taxes makes it difficult for me to climb to the top like my parents (kinda) have. Don't kill my goals. Don't enslave my parents.

We should reward work, not steal the work of others to maintain open doors of opportunity for the masses. I want to work. I want to be productive and build my life along side others. But, I do not want anyone, not a single person, who doesn't strive for success, but always takes the easy route, to have any of my hard work for their complacency.

Txgangsta
There are multiple factors for economies,like resources,& they have less resources,which is why the GDP is lower.I already gave sources showing they do not pay their fair share,you're only repeating yourself instead of refuting it.

http://www.topaccountingdegrees.org/taxes/

Many of them spend it in politics to get more tax breaks & other favors.Says the one not backing his arguments up as much as I am & not debunking it?You're making the same claims you did prior to the evidence.I honestly don't care about your personal life & it isn't my business.It's anecdotal & not convincing in a debate.Not all are rich because of hard work,that's delusional.

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/405010-debunking-lies-about-one-percent.html

Again,no,they don't pay their fair share.

Supermatt6534 :

How can I combat your diligence in foolishness? If you are determined, I cannot prevent you, regardless of what evidence I were to bring before you. Have fun.

Txgangsta : You have presented little of anything.One should not expect to convince one unless they have enough of it.If you want to to stop talking to me,that is your choice,but insulting me is uncalled for.

Txgangsta :
janus :
Supermatt6534 :

I understand that people have differing opinions in these type of debate threads. Which is the point. That being said, I advise you all to keep things civil in here as to not offend anyone. Just because this is a debate thread, does not mean that flaming or any other rules violations will be tolerated.

Thanks!

Eeeek! Mods are here! Run!

I called someone a "fool", what an insult...

Jordanv78 :

Txgangsta : I don't need my last comment to turn to debate and this doesn't require a response in this thread since I don't want to go further off topic...

Anyways, no matter the severity of the flame, I ask that you keep it civil and respectful in here and follow the rules. I don't really think that's asking too much. Thanks for understanding in advance.

Jordanv78 : I think I was being fairly civil.If I came off otherwise,that wasn't my intention.

Gotta go with my boy Bernie. Clinton is way too wishy washy and just shady in general. He wants to break up the giant circlejerks that run this nation, and has good ideas in general. ]Even Hillary is a fan, though she wouldn't dare say that these days. How this woman has gotten this far in the race despite those emails and constantly changing views is beyond me.

Rasenganfan2 :

If you break the guys that "run this nation", don't you know it'll be chaos for a while?

Txgangsta : They broke up big banks before.