Bernie sanders wants to tax stock trades to pay for free college

[Helix]

just because my money is stolen now doesn't mean I have to support future theft.

as I said you and your liberal friend can give all the money you want to. I gave you the link. so put your money where your mouth is.

i do so every paycheck when i pay my taxes. i'd prefer to have the money spent on the front end where it would do more good, though. you've indicated that you wouldn't, so be happy with the status quo.

 

[Threegoofs]

yes they did. it is called mathematical logic, mathematical proofing and several other classes on the same line to get those degree's.

You are now just pulling my leg's, aren't you?

 

[ludin]

i do so every paycheck when i pay my taxes. i'd prefer to have the money spent on the front end where it would do more good, though. you've indicated that you wouldn't, so be happy with the status quo.

nope you don't. you want to tax other people more simply because you feel they should be. if you feel this way then you can send more of your own money instead of someone else's.
the status quo is the status quo because they refuse to use the resources already in place.

pretty much anyone can attend college now. although now you are required to actually do some work.
I know it is a four letter dirty word to most liberals that people actually have to work to get ahead in life.

 

[tomkat364]

having been reading the paper lately I take it. there are plenty of jobs but not enough qualified people.
the issue is that companies want real life experience anymore on top of a college education.

both in general are hard to get at the same time.
I made sure that I actually did real world experience so that I would have more to put on my resume than I waited tables.

One of the issues, IMO, is that history is very clear on this fact: If a job requires a high school degree, and 40 people apply, 39 with a high school degree and 1 with a bachelor's degree, the employer will likely choose the bachelor's degree. If there are 40 people applying, all of which have bachelor's degrees, then the job will eventually 'require' a bachelor's degree. Then a college creates a masters program for that degree. Now 40 people apply, one with a master's degree, and the employer will choose the master's applicant. Then doctorates, etc. etc. This is called escalation, and is already evident in medicine, in which nurses and physical therapists can have doctorates (not M.D. or D.O.) in their respective fields. There was a time when bachelor's degrees were competitive, then master's, now doctorates.
Education is used by employers as a rough (and often fallacious) measure of a candidate's qualifications. If everyone has the same 'qualifications', then the employers will just get a different measure and the 'qualifications' will be worthless as a measure of anything.

 

[ludin]

You are now just pulling my leg's, aren't you?

I figured you had never taken a logic class in college it shows.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

and the strawmans continue.

Whats the strawman? Still havent explained even when asked to do so...

 

[ludin]

One of the issues, IMO, is that history is very clear on this fact: If a job requires a high school degree, and 40 people apply, 39 with a high school degree and 1 with a bachelor's degree, the employer will likely choose the bachelor's degree. If there are 40 people applying, all of which have bachelor's degrees, then the job will eventually 'require' a bachelor's degree. Then a college creates a masters program for that degree. Now 40 people apply, one with a master's degree, and the employer will choose the master's applicant. Then doctorates, etc. etc. This is called escalation, and is already evident in medicine, in which nurses and physical therapists can have doctorates (not M.D. or D.O.) in their respective fields. There was a time when bachelor's degrees were competitive, then master's, now doctorates.
Education is used by employers as a rough (and often fallacious) measure of a candidate's qualifications. If everyone has the same 'qualifications', then the employers will just get a different measure and the 'qualifications' will be worthless as a measure of anything.

it depends on the job. if it is for flipping burgers I am not hiring the guy with the bachelors degree. I am hiring the guy with the high school diploma.
I am i am running a computer service company then yea i am hiring the guy with the bachelors degree.

if all the people have the same degree's then i look at experience and the interview.

this is the typical business process which almost all employer use.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

are you going to ever move beyond thievery?

So all taxes are thievery? Is this your position now?

I worked and paid for it why can't they?

If college is free will they not work? Is something wrong with university being provided? Why is something wrong if university is provided and they dont have to pay any or as much as you did? If someones experience is different than yours because of a policy changed does that make it inherently "wrong" or "bad"?

I gave you the link that you can give all the money you want to the federal government

I know. And what is your point? Taxes should be voluntary? Because last time I asked that question you just said "strawman". So what's your point?

now be the good liberal and practice what you preach.

Which is what? I dont owe any stock currently.... Do liberals not owe $100 worth of stock? Also I am not a liberal.

 

[ludin]

Whats the strawman? Still havent explained even when asked to do so...

your blatant distortion of what people say is evidence enough of how dishonest you are. you can't shoot down the statement so you dishonestly distort the statement to say something else then argue the distortion.

this is referred to as a strawman.

it can also lead to several other logical fallacies depending on how bad the distortion is.
such appeals to emotion.

this pretty much sums up your statements so far.

i provided you and all the other liberals several ways that you can accomplish what you want to do with your own money.
you are free to do so at any time, and you can live with the fact that you don't steal from other people.

 

[Blemonds]

Yea I know working for something isn't something liberals understand. everything is supposed to be handed to them on a silver platter.
I was working full time got married had a kid and was going to school full time on the weekend.

got my 2nd degree in 3 years time.

I had to take out loans and other money in order to do it.
I got a good job out of college

and the only debt I have left is student loans and my home mortgage, but it was well worth it.
if you get a degree in a viable field you can be those loans off in little time. if you consolidate the loans then you can actually pay them off faster with a good job and a good degree.


it's a little thing called work.

The weird thing is that people worked hard to get a college education, then worked hard to help their children get a college education, and now socialists like Sanders want them to work hard to pay for other people to get a college education

 

[Henrin]

So he wants to damage the economy, so that people can go to college? That makes sense.

 

[Blemonds]

Excellent idea. A transactions tax on stock sales and purchases goes back to the 1930's in modern origin and is long overdue.

How about a transaction tax on food sales instead? That way everyone has some skin in the game

 

[ludin]

So all taxes are thievery? Is this your position now?

and the strawman continues.

If college is free will they not work? Is something wrong with university being provided? Why is something wrong if university is provided and they dont have to pay any or as much as you did? If someones experience is different than yours because of a policy changed does that make it inherently "wrong" or "bad"?

distortion and strawman.

I know. And what is your point? Taxes should be voluntary? Because last time I asked that question you just said "strawman". So what's your point?

the point is you don't have to steal other peoples money you can do it on your own with your own money. i never said anything about voluntary taxes which is why
your statement is a strawman.

Which is what? I dont owe any stock currently.... Do liberals not owe $100 worth of stock? Also I am not a liberal.

doesn't matter you feel other people should hand their money freely over to the government. i gave you the chance to practice what you preach but you don't seem interested.
why is that?

yes a socialist is nothing more than a more extreme liberal.

no need to tax stock like that at all. it is just another attempt to thieve from people without the realization of the consequences.

 

[Henrin]

Hey socialists/liberals, at what point are you going to propose a solution that doesn't involve my ****?

 

[ludin]

So he wants to damage the economy, so that people can go to college? That makes sense.

emotion without reason is a dangerous thing.

 

[tomkat364]

it depends on the job. if it is for flipping burgers I am not hiring the guy with the bachelors degree. I am hiring the guy with the high school diploma.
I am i am running a computer service company then yea i am hiring the guy with the bachelors degree.

if all the people have the same degree's then i look at experience and the interview.

this is the typical business process which almost all employer use.

I think you are missing my point. If no-one wants to be flipping burgers, but everyone has a college degree, there is no way that some people with college degrees would have to stoop to flipping burgers, since their degree will be less competitive. If everyone has the same degree, then the logical next step (which has already happened to many careers) will be to create a new degree that will be more competitive, and make a candidate stand out from EVERYONE else. The entire point of a college degree is to make someone more marketable.... in comparison to the other applicants.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

your blatant distortion of what people say is evidence enough of how dishonest you are. you can't shoot down the statement so you dishonestly distort the statement to say something else then argue the distortion.

this is referred to as a strawman.

What did I distort? You simply said, "well you can just donate your money then", so then I simply asked "are you saying taxes should be voluntary?", then you just yelled "STRAWMAN!". Then asked for you to clear up your statement and what you're implying, and you just kept on saying "well you can donate your money", then you said, "you support thievery!", so I asked "are all taxes thievery?". Its not a strawman, its simply asking your position on issues.

it can also lead to several other logical fallacies depending on how bad the distortion is.
such appeals to emotion.

Ahh yes.. You mean like statements like this: "are you going to ever move beyond thievery? POST #125"? Calling a 50cent tax on $100 worth of stock to fund education "thievery" seems like an appeal to emotion...

this pretty much sums up your statements so far.

Statements like this: "Yea I know working for something isn't something liberals understand. everything is supposed to be handed to them on a silver platter. POST#111" ?

i provided you and all the other liberals several ways that you can accomplish what you want to do with your own money.

So your point is???

you are free to do so at any time, and you can live with the fact that you don't steal from other people.

Yup. And your point is??? What? Because people can freely donate money to the federal government then we shouldn't have to pay for this policy? Because people can freely donate money to the federal government then we shouldn't have to pay for all policies? What? We should be allowed to pick and choose what taxes we want to pay?

 

[Henrin]

emotion without reason is a dangerous thing.

Like their view on constant inflation

Me: So wages increased on average 3% historically?

Them: No.

Me: So won't causing 3% inflation annually cause wealth disparity?

Them: Minimum wage

Me: So basically you cause a problem and solve it with minimum wage?

 

[Helix]

nope you don't. you want to tax other people more simply because you feel they should be. if you feel this way then you can send more of your own money instead of someone else's.
the status quo is the status quo because they refuse to use the resources already in place.

pretty much anyone can attend college now. although now you are required to actually do some work.
I know it is a four letter dirty word to most liberals that people actually have to work to get ahead in life.

putting a significant paywall between students and education is poor national policy, because it discourages kids from attending college. i'll explain it to you one last time since you haven't quite picked up on it : you're paying more in entitlements on the back end because kids who don't go on to post secondary education end up collecting more in entitlements. you're paying the money anyway. all we have to do is shift some national priorities, and we could probably guarantee debt free access to college to every student. it would probably mean ending foreverwar, but we should do that anyway. or, conversely, if neoconservatives and others won't consider ending foreverwar, then we would raise taxes appropriately if needed. my guess is that we'd see savings on the back end, though.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

and the strawman continues.

Its not a straw man its a question. Why cant you answer it? You asked If I was going to "move beyond thievery?". Well 1.)What thievery am I supporting? And 2.)If what I think you are stating falls under 'thievery', the 50cent tax on $100 of stock, are all taxes "thievery"?

Its not a straw man, its asking questions.

distortion and strawman.

Again, not a distortion and not a straw man. Questioning and challenging your positions. So again I will ask: "If college is free will they not work? Is something wrong with university being provided? Why is something wrong if university is provided and they dont have to pay any or as much as you did? If someones experience is different than yours because of a policy changed does that make it inherently "wrong" or "bad"?"

the point is you don't have to steal other peoples money you can do it on your own with your own money.

Who is stealing other peoples money and by what means?

i never said anything about voluntary taxes which is why your statement is a strawman.

Whats this then? "I gave you the link that you can give all the money you want to the federal government"

doesn't matter you feel other people should hand their money freely over to the government.

Yup. Its called taxes.

i gave you the chance to practice what you preach but you don't seem interested.

So pick and choose what we fund?

why is that?

Why is what? Why dont people just randomly donate money to the state to fund universal college education? Well because we have these things called taxes and expecting people just to hand over money to the federal government at will is not going to fund universal college education because its not law or policy.

yes a socialist is nothing more than a more extreme liberal.

For all your talk about fallacies, this is pure irony.

no need to tax stock like that at all. it is just another attempt to thieve from people without the realization of the consequences.

Why is taxing stock like this thievery?

 

[justabubba]

i like Bernie
and certain aspects of his proposal

effecting a transaction cost on trading stocks is something which needs to be done, despite whether those revenues were earmarked for advanced education purposes. trades would no longer occur based on tiny movements in stock prices; shares would then be held for longer periods, mitigating some of the market volatility

i would encourage his approach to be applied incrementally, starting with medical schools/medical studies. we need more trained medical personnel. for every student who is accepted to medical school, there is a qualified applicant who is not. similar to military academies, we should create medical academies where the doctors who emerge graduate with a multi-year obligation to serve the American people to repay their med school debt

and for the prospective PAs, nurses and med technicians, use the monies from the stock trade tax revenues to cover their educational costs

a problem i have with Bernie's approach is that i do not see how it would be fairly implemented. can one person enroll in a school of higher education and remain there in perpetuity, enjoying a student's life at taxpayer expense
all citizens would not qualify to attend because they will not have met the colleges'/universities' entrance requirements. that will be especially true of the poor, who tend to emerge from high school (the 70% who do) less qualified - on average - than those who are fortunate to be have been born into higher economic strata. and those who are poor are disproportionately minorities. the net result would be to provide a financial and educational advantage to those from the higher socio-economic categories ... and they will tend to be very white

earlier in the thread, there was a presentation that our public school performance is weak. and it is. however, when comparing where our nation's school performance stands with respect to other advanced societies, we suffer in that comparison because a larger portion of our measured students are from impoverished homes. when adjusting for that, our school performance tends to elevate to the middle of the pack. but significantly, our poor students tend to perform better than the poor students from those other advanced societies in the proverbial apples-to-apples comparisons. however, our students from higher rungs of society, perform worse is direct comparison to their international peers. here is an excellent study which describes the true educational performance correlation to or international counterparts: What do international tests really show about U.S. student performance? | Economic Policy Institute

if this is a legitimate concern we would similarly expect poorer states in the USA to do less well than richer states. and that is what is found: in 2011, the math average for alabama students was 466 compared to that of Massachusetts students at 561. the greater proportion of poorer, less performing students, skews the results just as it does for the USA and its higher proportion of poor students when compared to the school performance measures of other advanced societies

 

[shrubnose]

Rather than "stick it to" anyone, why not create a society in which everyone has an opportunity to prosper, and where all ships rise together?

What we should be asking ourselves is what can we do to incentivize productivity and maximize economic output so that everyone has a chance to grab a piece of the pie

Wake up and smell the coffee.

That's Bernie Sanders idea here, But the GOP will probably never let it happen.

 

[Ockham]

Wake up and smell the coffee.

That's Bernie Sanders idea here, But the GOP will probably never let it happen.

Thank God. Give higher learning for free and it's value is lost.

 

[Hard Truth]

One of the issues, IMO, is that history is very clear on this fact: If a job requires a high school degree, and 40 people apply, 39 with a high school degree and 1 with a bachelor's degree, the employer will likely choose the bachelor's degree. If there are 40 people applying, all of which have bachelor's degrees, then the job will eventually 'require' a bachelor's degree. Then a college creates a masters program for that degree. Now 40 people apply, one with a master's degree, and the employer will choose the master's applicant. Then doctorates, etc. etc. This is called escalation, and is already evident in medicine, in which nurses and physical therapists can have doctorates (not M.D. or D.O.) in their respective fields. There was a time when bachelor's degrees were competitive, then master's, now doctorates.
Education is used by employers as a rough (and often fallacious) measure of a candidate's qualifications. If everyone has the same 'qualifications', then the employers will just get a different measure and the 'qualifications' will be worthless as a measure of anything.

The knowledge gained in college has value beyond getting a first or second job.

 

[Paschendale]

Not money, but productivity. The argument to be made for a better-educated populace is that educated workers are productive workers, and that a high tide raises all ships, so to say.

I don't personally buy it, but that's the crux of the argument.

As for me paying more taxes so that some kid can take acting lessons, you're never gonna convince me to vote for that. Fulfillment comes from achievement, and anyone who subsides on handouts can never claim to have achieved anything.

Productivity and achievement aren't the same thing at all. Productivity is about profit. Your education argument is about profit and money, too. Does education only have value because it allows people to produce more wealth? And you seem to be tying achievement to money as well. No one who isn't earning money can ever achieve anything? Really? If someone who is broke and on food stamps writes a great novel, they didn't achieve anything?

We seriously need to get over money. It's an artificial construct to facilitate trade. It's rooted in scarcity. There is less scarcity than ever before, and yet somehow we're more obsessed with money and possessions. You can't even frame a fulfilling life or accomplishments outside of accumulating wealth (or even worse, creating wealth for an already wealthy master). Money is going to become obsolete in the future, probably in the near future. We should start moving towards that instead of trying desperately to pretend that it's not coming. We'll all (almost all, except for the small subset of sociopaths whose only happiness comes from feeding their greed) live better and happier lives. Getting past materialism and greed is how you move past the cynicism that you bemoan about modern society.