Bernie Sanders

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:27 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:Of course it is a burden as he gets a reduced share of the collective prosperity windfall over that period.
Even assuming that, without admitting it (it's a stretch to say that each person gets a windfall if GDP goes up and a burden if GDP goes down -- that's not how GDP works), but even assuming that arguendo, it's still not a tax.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 52893
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:28 pm

It's still tax, as it is exactly that. And each person does get a share of GDP as it goes towards collective prosperity via government revenue.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:30 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:Put it this way, are you better or worse off, in the long run, if you pay $5k tax in a country with a GDP per capita of $40k vs $30k?
That's not possible to tell. In and of itself the per capita GDP tells us nothing about how "well off" a person in that country is. And, it can be deceptive, because, the way GDP is calculated, for example, when the government paid in bailout money and spent a near $1 trillion in trying to stave off the recession, those expenditures were counted as GDP. That doesn't measure how well off a person is.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:33 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:It's still tax, as it is exactly that. And each person does get a share of GDP as it goes towards collective prosperity via government revenue.
Look, if the tax rate is 20%, it's not a tax increase for GDP to go down.

GDP isn't money that "goes toward" anything. GDP is Gross Domestic Product -- the total amount of goods produced and services rendered in a country for a given year. People don't get a share of gross domestic product. If someone is making widgets in the US and they produce $X worth of them, that's counted as GDP. The money isn't distributed to people, and much of it isn't even money. It can be "goods."
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 52893
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:36 pm

Obviously GDP isn't the definitive measure of how well off people are. Ironically, though, it's usually progressives who have to point that out to economic liberals, not the other way round.

As I said above, GDP is a reasonable measure of the prosperity of a country. The higher the GDP the higher the revenue the gov has to spend on stuff. If it spends it on military, then that's obviously not so good for the people. But if it spends a good whack of it on social services, then the average person benefits.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Seth » Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:10 pm

rainbow wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:Where are the repubs and the rich going to flee to? Ireland perhaps?
There is no need. Their wealth is already safely tucked away in the Caymans, Delaware :shifty: and Switzerland.
Despite their claims of patriotism.
Switzerland ain't safe anymore, it hands over US taxpayer to the IRS. Lichtenstein I believe still has actual banking secrecy laws. Perhaps also Monaco.

And fleeing fleecing by the government isn't anti-patriotic, it's entirely patriotic because the United States was never intended to have a federal government of such size and power that it would ever need to fleece the taxpayers, so keeping the money away from the minions of the tyrant at the IRS is an entirely patriotic thing to do because it starves the tyrant of the funds he needs to tyrannize the taxpayers.

In fact, tax avoidance is a civil right.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
rachelbean
"awesome."
Posts: 15689
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:08 am
About me: I'm a nerd.
Location: Wales, aka not England
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by rachelbean » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:21 am

The fucked up thing about the fee for renouncing citizenship is that if it's meant to hurt tax dodgers it makes no sense because if you have enough money that you want to fuck off and leave the U.S. behind then $2400 isn't really going to be much for you. The people that it hurts are people like me who just want to make a life somewhere else, and my choice is put it on a credit card and/or give up that years family holiday. I'm not taking anything away from the U.S. besides the taxes that I would pay if I lived there, and whilst I made a lot more money back home than I do here, in the grand scheme of things it's just a tiny drop in a very big bucket.

I have to file taxes in the US every year despite not having earned anything there since 2011. My taxes here will be higher so I won't owe them money UNTIL my retirement fund hits 10k (which will be next year) and which time I'll get put into a special bracket and have to file FBAR and then I will start owing money. So, I will find the money before that to leave officially, but I find it rather fucked up that I'm put in a place to have to make that decision due to taxes. If it wasn't for that there would be no reason for me to give up my citizenship.
lordpasternack wrote:Yeah - I fuckin' love oppressin' ma wimmin, like I love chowin' on ma bacon and tuggin' on ma ol' cock… ;)
Pappa wrote:God is a cunt! I wank over pictures of Jesus! I love Darwin so much I'd have sex with his bones!!!!
Image

User avatar
NineBerry
Tame Wolf
Posts: 6180
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:35 pm
Location: nSk
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by NineBerry » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:30 am

It's quite simple:

1. As long as you were a citizen and grew up in the US the state did provide for you. You were able to use public infrastructure maybe even went to a state school without paying any taxes. So you share some responsibility in paying back to the state.

2. As long as you are still a citizen you have a right to return to the US later and then benefit from the government once again without paying taxes (when you are old).

Imagine someone spending his early years in the US (school, university), then going to a different country for work and returning to the US as a senior. Using a lot of public infrastructure (as a youth and elder) but paying hardly any taxes. Would not seem fair.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 10349
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Row, row, row your boat
Gently down the stream
Belts off, trousers down
Isn't life a scream?
Whoa!
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by rainbow » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:52 am

Seth wrote: In fact, tax avoidance is a civil right.
The only countries that levy no taxes are Communist.

I suggest that you move to the Libertarian Paradise of North Korea.
aingira usaina duzu

User avatar
rachelbean
"awesome."
Posts: 15689
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:08 am
About me: I'm a nerd.
Location: Wales, aka not England
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by rachelbean » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:55 am

NineBerry wrote:It's quite simple:

1. As long as you were a citizen and grew up in the US the state did provide for you. You were able to use public infrastructure maybe even went to a state school without paying any taxes. So you share some responsibility in paying back to the state.

2. As long as you are still a citizen you have a right to return to the US later and then benefit from the government once again without paying taxes (when you are old).

Imagine someone spending his early years in the US (school, university), then going to a different country for work and returning to the US as a senior. Using a lot of public infrastructure (as a youth and elder) but paying hardly any taxes. Would not seem fair.
I paid taxes whilst I lived there (nearly 20 years of work) and have lots of money in social security which I will never claim. I went to public school through age 10, after which time I was home-schooled (and paid to a private organization) through to graduation. After 18 I paid for private insurance and private loans for school. I live and work and am a citizen in a different country, only having been to the us on holiday two weeks out of the last 4 years. Why should I imagine a fake scenario when I have my own actual one? Regardless, if it's not fair then why would I be charged to give up rights to my social security? Shouldn't my leaving any claims to US infrastructure be welcomed? The U.S. arbitrarily quadrupled the fee to renounce citizenship in 2014 with no explanation. The ONLY other country besides the US that taxes it's expats is Eritrea, which is an African dictatorship. I find it really weird that anyone would try and defend that.
lordpasternack wrote:Yeah - I fuckin' love oppressin' ma wimmin, like I love chowin' on ma bacon and tuggin' on ma ol' cock… ;)
Pappa wrote:God is a cunt! I wank over pictures of Jesus! I love Darwin so much I'd have sex with his bones!!!!
Image

User avatar
NineBerry
Tame Wolf
Posts: 6180
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:35 pm
Location: nSk
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by NineBerry » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:30 am

I was not referring to the fee for renouncing citizenship but the having to pay taxes at home when working abroad question.

User avatar
rachelbean
"awesome."
Posts: 15689
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:08 am
About me: I'm a nerd.
Location: Wales, aka not England
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by rachelbean » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:37 am

Again, the US is the only country (besides Eritrea) that taxes it's citizens abroad. The fictional scenario of someone living off the state till age 18, leaving and only returning to retire is so rare it's silly to put it up as a reason behind the rule. The case of somebody working and paying taxes into social security only to move away and never claim it is likely much more common. I am costing the US nothing by living here and have no rights to any benefits because I don't have residence.
lordpasternack wrote:Yeah - I fuckin' love oppressin' ma wimmin, like I love chowin' on ma bacon and tuggin' on ma ol' cock… ;)
Pappa wrote:God is a cunt! I wank over pictures of Jesus! I love Darwin so much I'd have sex with his bones!!!!
Image

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Forty Two » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:00 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:Obviously GDP isn't the definitive measure of how well off people are. Ironically, though, it's usually progressives who have to point that out to economic liberals, not the other way round.
Nobody thinks it is a definitive measure of how well off people are. It's a measure of how productive a country is, and in that regard it is not all that useful, since counting borrowed money paid out by the government as part of GDP is rather unreflective of GDP.

But, the point we were discussing is whether it's a tax increase for GDP to go down. No, it isn't.
rEvolutionist wrote:
As I said above, GDP is a reasonable measure of the prosperity of a country. The higher the GDP the higher the revenue the gov has to spend on stuff.
Perhaps in a rough sense, because higher GDPs would mean higher sales and a country with a Value Added Tax might collect more tax, and companies that sell more tend to have more income and therefore would probably pay more in tax. I never said it wasn't an indicator -- it is, it's a metric/measurement.
rEvolutionist wrote:
If it spends it on military, then that's obviously not so good for the people. But if it spends a good whack of it on social services, then the average person benefits.
Military spending is not "obviously not so good for people." In a world with competing nations with military forces and the potential for wars, military spending may be of the utmost benefit to people, protecting their lives and livelihoods.

Social services are certainly a benefit to the people who receive them, and to society as a whole which benefits from being relieved of greater expected problems if people fall too low. However, this is not black and white either, and too much in the way of social services can restrain economic growth and overall prosperity of the "average person." Certainly, putting the bulk of society on welfare is not a benefit to society at large or the "average person."

I am not against welfare for the poor. But, it's not a panacea. Nothing is. And, it's not black and white -- more social services or social welfare does not equal "better."

Have you read Hayek's "Road to Serfdom?" I recommend it. Don't ignore it because it may be among the authors/thinkers that you oppose (that should be all the more reason to read him, not a reason to hand wave him away). Before you give me an anti-libertarian speech, note that Hayek wrote, in Law, Legislation and Liberty (volume 3) The Political Order of a Free People, and his Autobiographical Dialog that he supports a guaranteed minimum income for everyone. "The assurance of a guaranteed minimum income for everyone or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself appears to be not only a legitimate protection against a risk common to all but a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born. " He refers after that to the reaction of people who have found themselves without help when, through no fault of their own, they find their capacity to earn a living has ceased. He points out, though, that "it is unfortunate that the endeavor to provide a uniform minimum for all who cannot provide for themselves has become connected with the wholly different aims of securing a "just" distributionf of incomes....." Vol. 3, Law Legislation and Liberty, page 54-56.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Forty Two » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:02 pm

rachelbean wrote:Again, the US is the only country (besides Eritrea) that taxes it's citizens abroad. The fictional scenario of someone living off the state till age 18, leaving and only returning to retire is so rare it's silly to put it up as a reason behind the rule. The case of somebody working and paying taxes into social security only to move away and never claim it is likely much more common. I am costing the US nothing by living here and have no rights to any benefits because I don't have residence.
The taxes worldwide income, but doesn't it only actually impose the tax if your income is not taxed by another authority? Meaning -- you don't actually pay US tax. You just have to file, declare the income, note the tax paid in the UK, and then they don't tax you? It's a question - I'm genuinely not clear on it. I hate taxes and the US tax system. It's a nightmare.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Forty Two » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:14 pm

rachelbean wrote:The fucked up thing about the fee for renouncing citizenship is that if it's meant to hurt tax dodgers it makes no sense because if you have enough money that you want to fuck off and leave the U.S. behind then $2400 isn't really going to be much for you. The people that it hurts are people like me who just want to make a life somewhere else, and my choice is put it on a credit card and/or give up that years family holiday. I'm not taking anything away from the U.S. besides the taxes that I would pay if I lived there, and whilst I made a lot more money back home than I do here, in the grand scheme of things it's just a tiny drop in a very big bucket.

I have to file taxes in the US every year despite not having earned anything there since 2011. My taxes here will be higher so I won't owe them money UNTIL my retirement fund hits 10k (which will be next year) and which time I'll get put into a special bracket and have to file FBAR and then I will start owing money. So, I will find the money before that to leave officially, but I find it rather fucked up that I'm put in a place to have to make that decision due to taxes. If it wasn't for that there would be no reason for me to give up my citizenship.
It's not meant to hurt tax dodgers. it's meant to stop people from renouncing citizenship. One or two billionaires renounce ciizenship? Not a big worry. They State didn't want to see an uptick in Americans giving up citizenship. It's bad politically if you came in, adopted a bunch of "Change" and then the opposition could make a chart that showed a market increase in expatriates renouncing or relinquishing citizenship.

Maybe you can find a way to put your retirement money in an account held by a foreign Trust that you control, so it's not in your individual name?

Your situation sucks, but good luck. The sucky part of giving up US citizenship is losing your US passport. Then coming back to the US is on Visa Waiver and you have 90 day limits and such, and if you ever wanted to come back long term, you'd have to get a nonimmigrant visa on some basis or a green card. Sucks.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests