JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Forums

1/27/2016 9:26:40 PM
19
Respectfully, this is a lot of work to support a really asinine comparison. (disclaimer: I am an independent voter with zero party affiliations - or love, but I am a 48 year old guardian who reads a lot of political thought. I'm adding this only for the sake of intelligent conversation) Don't play into the dumbed-down narrative on either side of U.S. politics. The problem is not "rich people," its that the global economy is being stripped clean by a teeny, tiny fraction of financial institutions and billionaires because they can manipulate both the stock market and world governments. That is Sanders' platform: we have an environment where a wealthy person or firm can not only rig the market to accumulate tax-free wealth, but also manipulate policy to keep the cash flow constant. America is basically like a Big Fat Guy, with "the fat" being the non-producing financial class. It's important to have some fat, because it keeps the whole organism healthy. Fat is really good at protecting itself though, because it sees itself as the energy reserves the body will need if there's no food. The US is more profitable than ever, but these "fat pockets" have diverted so much wealth into accounts that just sit there - so the rest of the body starts to break down trying to carry its huge ass around. Logic dictates that if you're fat, you need to shake that energy loose so the rest of the body can utilize it, but your fat cells will throw warning signals into the system because that's what fat does - it insulates itself. People start to get scared about their overall well-being, and ultimately vote against their best interests in exactly the same way that a Big Fat Guy stays on the couch, for fear that he might have a heart attack. Sanders isn't going to confiscate bank accounts - his point is that if billions are being maneuvered around the stock market, then by taxing stock market transactions incrementally we can help the body of our society to repair itself. If you're a regular person and maybe doing hundreds or thousands of dollars in investing, it might cost you a few bucks. If you're using millions or billions of dollars like chess pieces, you'll be helping society - and also abusing the system less because its no longer free to do so. If you think it's a crock of shyt that corporations are buying and selling the government that's supposed to keep your interests first, then pay attention to the background of each candidate and see where they got their money - and even if you don't agree with all of their positions, pay close attention to the ones who are clearly just telling you whatever you want to hear to get elected, and the ones who really give a damn about creating a government that works for everyone, regardless of income level. Destiny is a game. This isn't.
English

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote] Don't play into the dumbed-down narrative on either side of U.S. politics. The problem is not "rich people," its that the global economy is being stripped clean by a teeny, tiny fraction of financial institutions and billionaires because they can manipulate both the stock market and world governments. That is Sanders' platform: we have an environment where a wealthy person or firm can not only rig the market to accumulate tax-free wealth, but also manipulate policy to keep the cash flow constant. [/quote] 100% accurate Rich people aren't the problem. The problem is the extremely wealthy and powerful who choose to manipulate the system at the extreme expense of others. The news media doesn't do its job and address this issue because it obviously isn't in the interests of powerful people. The fact is that things like this have always occurred in human history but the masses are too oblivious/preoccupied to figure it out. I remember one or the very speeches John F Kennedy gave in regards to people operating behind the scenes and how it was a threat to democracy and a threat to the well being of citizens.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Bump

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Bernie wants to tax capital gains at a higher rate and increase fees per transaction. Those kind of policies discourage investment, and hurt the average person that invests in the market. We should be encouraging investing not discouraging it.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Croat I know it seems like I am picking on you but really you are one of the few attempting to rationalize their opinion which I respect. This allows for us to have a discussion, which has a possibility to reach a point of mutual understanding. Not just for us but others reading our discussion. Now on to your point, I agree investment is good and should be encouraged but only 14% of global investment is innovative investment (meaning we are trying to develop a business or product). The rest is purely financial which is loans and bonds and such which have nothing really to do with overall economic growth and more to do with personal wealth. So taxing capital gains at a higher rate (at least reflexive of income which you actually have to WORK to make) would not be the end of the world. Lastly a fee on trading would put an end to automated high speed trading which has recently made the stock market into a mad house. I think there is a balance to be struck.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • My concern is that sweeping regulation will have an adverse effect on the average person. I'm not a millionaire or anywhere close to the top 1%, I have a good job and have some surplus income. Many other people in the middle class are in a similar situation. Speculation in the market is a way for people in the middle class to grow their wealth, assuming they have some financial/market knowledge. Public companies also benefit from this by intaking capital and using it to further grow their business (more jobs and investment on the company's end). I agree that speculative investment is not as big of a factor in economic growth when compared to innovative investment, but it certainly has an important part to play. Where I really become concerned is how the market forces in play end up directing the consumer. Innovative investment is more difficult now than it was in the past due to immense regulation, it is harder to start a business now than it was in let's say the 80's. Because of these regulations more capital is required to start a business in order to overcome regulatory hurdles, I believe that this in a way directs a person in the direction of speculative investment instead of innovative investment, because the cost and risk placed on the individual is less if they choose the speculative investment route over the innovative investment route. If we further regulate speculative investment (as we have done innovative investment) where will people turn in order to grow their money?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Individual speculation will truly, barely be affected. The biggest impact, clearly, will be a market that is less subject to million-billion+ dollar speculations that are only designed to shift the market fictionally - that screws you, the small- to medium personal investor, infinitely more than a small fee. Seriously, I appreciate where you're coming from, and you need to know that I believe strongly that the only good mind is an open one. Keep researching it and learning more - and I promise I will do the same.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • It's all about better balance - agreed.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]Bernie wants to tax capital gains at a higher rate and increase fees per transaction. Those kind of policies discourage investment, and hurt the average person that invests in the market. We should be encouraging investing not discouraging it.[/quote] You're clearly Ignorant. Let's say I make $10 million a year, while you barely make enough to scrape by, making $8 an hour. You get taxed, let's say, 2.5% of your annual income. Meanwhile, I'll get taxed 72%. I'm still sitting pretty with 2.8 million a year while you, you've got barely enough to pay for food, let alone rent. "But one should just get a better job!" Well look at how expensive it is to get an education and, therefore, a better job. You won't be able to. That's another part of bernie's platform: making education more affordable. Minimum wage's buying power has [b][u]not[/u][/b] scaled up with the cost of higher education. The plan is to keep the poor, poor, and help the rich get richer. Bernie wants to stop that.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Also go look up the price of college tuition prior to gov't intervention. The cost of college was very affordable prior to the federal gov't guaranteeing student loans. By having the loans guaranteed by the gov't, colleges could hike up tuition prices to whatever they wanted and if the student couldn't pay back the debt the gov't stepped in and paid the college because the loan was guaranteed by the gov't. In addition, by hiking up the tuition universities increased the amount of students that would require loans. Since the loans are guaranteed by the gov't this directly leads to more money in the universities pocket. Gov't intervention created the problem of bloated tuition costs.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • You are kind of blaming the hammer for what the carpenter is doing here. I am not mad at the government for providing an opportunity that many would not have otherwise for higher price. It is the schools and the administrations whose salaries by the way have grown even faster. If you look into the income of university and college presidents over the last decade the need for higher tuition has all to do with greed and little to do with lower income students.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • I agree with this, the schools do shoulder responsibility for the hikes in tuition. And you are absolutely right that salaries for school presidents and administrators have gone up. However, this would never have happened if the gov't never got involved. Natural market forces would have prevented this, in a free market no entity can get away with randomly hiking the prices of a good (assuming there is no monopoly).

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • The market is highly irrational despite what they teach in econ classes the market will act randomly and different industries will act differently to the same situation these things cannot be painted with all government is bad brush. Education is the cornerstone of our society and intellectual growth as a species. Equal access to education should be a basic human right. The issue we have here is the presidents of state institutions lining their pockets with tuition costs which need a two front approach the pure market force of lower cost private institutions stealing students away (unlikely but may happen, this has a lot t do with barrier to entry costs which we may touch on later), and state or federal regulation of what their/our employees may pay themselves. The trustee system in state schools may need to be reformed. Again we have balance neither approach is wrong nor will interfere with the other. SIDE BAR: I think we should form a group call "The Destiny Economic Forum"

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • A "Destiny Economic Forum" would a welcome break from the constant "nerf this, nerf that" talk haha

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by REXEL: 1/29/2016 12:54:29 AM
    Part of the problem is that the government is too lenient with who gets loans for college, as well as the colleges being lenient on who they let in. More people are able to get loans and this has led to the tuition price going up because colleges have to invest in more resources to accommodate the increased number of people. The college loan issue is similar to the housing loan issue that happened in 08, on the basis that people are being issued loans they can't afford/pay back. Now if more students begin defaulting on loans like people were on their home loans, tax payers will be on the losing end again. For the record im not opposed to affordable college, but only people who have the capacity to do well should be allowed into college. During my time in college I saw people who were rich, and poor who just didn't have the capacity or willingness to do the work and comprehend material.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • For the most part I agree with you rexel, the only question is where do we draw the line how do we determine who is going to be worthy? Also can we afford to be picky? More and more the US is exporting its engineering and scientific expertise. Which I am not against sharing our centers of learning with the world but I want to see as many Americans as I can get through them. You have to remember in many other countries higher education is free or subsidized by taxes. How are we going to compete in a global economy? The increase in attendance has been sharp but it also seems that you need a 4 year degree to flip a burger these days. Our move to a service economy means there is fewer labor jobs which a regular high school graduate can make a decent living at. Can you support yourself on $8 a hour? Not likely, how about 16? Better but you may still need to do a second job if you ever want a spare penny. Do you want a family? Well now we are talking about needing at least 25-30 a hour or both parents will need to work which will mean another generation detached from their families because they barely know their parents. SIDEBAR: I am totally fine with women working in fact women have us beat at some jobs. There is a cost though, who will raise children? Some people pull it off but most I have seen do not. Maybe dad stays home? I do not know but I see a lot of family fail because the home has no heart. I think a lot of stupid men ruined a great thing we all had, if your wife is at home give her the respect she deserves that is an important job.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • No intelligent person will sit back and and allow 72% of their income to be taxed. The person getting taxed at 72% will take their money elsewhere. You obviously can't grasp this, yet you call me ignorant.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • It depends on what I make, if I made 100 million a year i really would not care that I was taxed. On the other hand I would be eagle-eye on the government to make sure it is spent well. Also were does this 72% come from? Seems pretty random.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Incredible analogy.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Thanks! You're welcome to use it, just cite your source and split the royalties with me, lol.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon