Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Bernie Sanders Gives 6 HUGE REASONS To Pick Him Over Hillary [View all]Sancho
(9,070 posts)77. We all know Bernie gets excited and talks in simple bullet points, but he's off base again.
First, NONE of the Democratic candidates would touch SS, and everyone of them would expand it, strengthen it, and prevent it's privatization at all costs. In that sense they are the same.
Bernie is trying to hawk another of his simplistic economic solutions that he thinks would make a difference to the inequity we've all talked about for a few years. He proposes raising the SS cap on taxable income. NOTE THEY LAST PART: Taxable Income. Even a post on DU this week demonstrated a tax dodge to get around this new law - if it ever passed:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251560231
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2015/08/30/tax-planning-for-the-risk-of-a-bernie-sanders-win/
Social Security
This proposal is huge in my mind. They would apply the social security tax on incomes over $250,000 The current limit is $118,500. So it seems like there would be a tax-free bubble between $118,500 and $250,000. Its hard to see the policy justification for the bubble, but that is neither here nor there. This change would cost Sanders main opponent Hillary Clinton well over $1,000,000 in self-employment tax on her self-employment income, mainly from speeches, of over $13,390,499. The current solution, not open to Hillary probably for political reasons, is to do what Newt Gingrich did and run your income through an S Corporation.
If you have thought about converting your business to an S Corporation and passed it by, you should probably think again. There is an immediate savings on the medicare tax, as long as you are not piggy about it and it would pay off big time if this change went through. Certainly if you are running a professional practice as a C corporation and bonusing everything out, you should really take another look. You probably should do that anyway, but here is an extra incentive.
This proposal is huge in my mind. They would apply the social security tax on incomes over $250,000 The current limit is $118,500. So it seems like there would be a tax-free bubble between $118,500 and $250,000. Its hard to see the policy justification for the bubble, but that is neither here nor there. This change would cost Sanders main opponent Hillary Clinton well over $1,000,000 in self-employment tax on her self-employment income, mainly from speeches, of over $13,390,499. The current solution, not open to Hillary probably for political reasons, is to do what Newt Gingrich did and run your income through an S Corporation.
If you have thought about converting your business to an S Corporation and passed it by, you should probably think again. There is an immediate savings on the medicare tax, as long as you are not piggy about it and it would pay off big time if this change went through. Certainly if you are running a professional practice as a C corporation and bonusing everything out, you should really take another look. You probably should do that anyway, but here is an extra incentive.
Hillary is well aware of ways to protect SS, and she has mentioned raising the cap as a possible change years ago. She is also aware it's a waste of time without closing loopholes. Hillary has repeatedly states she would protect SS. She also does not want to increase taxes on the middle class. Simply raising the cap would likely affect more middle class families, while the wealthy would simply use a tax dodge to avoid paying the increase. Bernie's plan needs to avoid that regressive problem, and that's the main reason it's not a simple fix. Remember that with inflation, what affects the rich now will be "middle class" in a decade or two. Raising the cap might work in favor of the rich and against the middle class if it's not implemented correctly, so maybe it's not a good idea.
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm
Privatization off the table; but maybe payroll cap increase
During her 2008 presidential bid, Clinton was relatively non-committal about reforms to the Social Security program. She said in 2007 that certain reforms such as cutting benefits, privatizing the program or raising the retirement age were "off the table." There were some articles at the time that gave mixed signals on whether she would be willing to increase payroll taxes.
One account from the Associated Press featured a conversation between a campaigning Clinton and an Iowa voter in which the candidate said she might consider committing more of workers' income to Social Security. "She told him she didn't want to put an additional tax burden on the middle class but would consider a 'gap,' with no Social Security taxes on income from $97,500 to around $200,000. Anything above that could be taxed," according to the article.
One account from the Associated Press featured a conversation between a campaigning Clinton and an Iowa voter in which the candidate said she might consider committing more of workers' income to Social Security. "She told him she didn't want to put an additional tax burden on the middle class but would consider a 'gap,' with no Social Security taxes on income from $97,500 to around $200,000. Anything above that could be taxed," according to the article.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
144 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Clinton said no to reestablishing Glass-Steagall because she isn't sure it would correct the problem
rhett o rick
Aug 2015
#43
I want to point out that the exerpt you posted is such a great example of Clinton speak.
rhett o rick
Aug 2015
#98
When asked about about college loans she said something like, "no student should go into
rhett o rick
Aug 2015
#107
And notice how she says "college" which could be a way of not saying "university"...
cascadiance
Aug 2015
#114
I'm dealing with that same argument with a close friend of mine. He loves Bernie's ideas but
Stardust
Sep 2015
#117
You are so right. Reminds me of an ESPN story about a high school football coach who is bucking
Stardust
Sep 2015
#136
I don't require purity from my candidates. It's easy to have a record like Sanders when you
Metric System
Aug 2015
#15
I don't require purity from a candidate either. That wasn't the question though
LondonReign2
Aug 2015
#17
How does he plan to make all these changes? They're just words. Again, he has never been in a
Metric System
Aug 2015
#19
You don't appear to want to say if you agree with Hillary's stance on these six issues
LondonReign2
Aug 2015
#48
Amazing. You can't say you support even a single one of Hillary's positions
LondonReign2
Aug 2015
#83
You do know he has been a mayor, a Representative, and a Senator don't you?
A Simple Game
Aug 2015
#87
I'll admit I goofed on his background. That being said, it drives me INSANE when I see posts like
Metric System
Aug 2015
#91
I never implied you were a campaign plant, but it is common practice for campaigns to send
A Simple Game
Aug 2015
#97
"He has never had to compromise and work with others, since he has never been in a leadership role."
Marty McGraw
Aug 2015
#30
How peculiar. You say you don't require purity, but then complain when he doesn't meet your metric.
Bubzer
Aug 2015
#42
That's fine. But you know what I wish? I wish Hillary's supporters would talk
sabrina 1
Sep 2015
#144
There are major differences between them on many of the big issues I care about.
stillwaiting
Aug 2015
#9
Hope you blew the dust off that old-ass script before you started reading the lines again.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2015
#121
+1 The repukes are drooling at the thought of running against her in the general.
hifiguy
Aug 2015
#55
I agree that having a huge money war-chest is a terrible reason to vote for a candidate.
Bubzer
Aug 2015
#63
And if he were to get the nomination and Democrats don't support him does that mean they would be...
Armstead
Aug 2015
#85
I've never blamed Nader for 2000; I've always blamed Gore for running a mediocre campaign...
brooklynite
Aug 2015
#86
So if Bernie makes it to the general election you don't see how he can overcome the
A Simple Game
Aug 2015
#95
Sanders dining with Congressional staffers proves that he can't work with his colleagues..
frylock
Aug 2015
#38
Bernie was up and running on the issues and did not need a listening tour or a lot of paid
JDPriestly
Aug 2015
#57
Let's compare apples and apples. Bernie's net worth vs. the Clinton's (both of them) $30MM in 16 m.
erronis
Aug 2015
#40
Please explain your post to someone like me hwo doesn't understand your approach.
JDPriestly
Aug 2015
#58
Re: Please explain your post to someone like me hwo doesn't understand your approach.
erronis
Aug 2015
#78
Thank you. Clearly we need to require all candidates to disclose their wealth in a format
JDPriestly
Aug 2015
#84
And don't forget Hillary's "little summer job" last year that earned her $1.6 million ...
DrBulldog
Aug 2015
#49
I really only need one. He is not the run of the mill establishment small d democrat.
Autumn
Aug 2015
#53
Hmmm, I think Bernie is giving exactly the reasons why he is wrong and Hillary is right!
Sancho
Aug 2015
#61
Thank you so much, Sancho.. one poster couldn't handle your research so all he had was..
Cha
Sep 2015
#124
On number 3, Bernie almost needs to be fact checked by Politifact. He usually isn't so careless.
Sancho
Aug 2015
#68
biggest for me. the gnewz media is trying to Gore her. they want NEW, they want SQUIRREL!(tRUMP).
pansypoo53219
Aug 2015
#69
We all know Bernie gets excited and talks in simple bullet points, but he's off base again.
Sancho
Aug 2015
#77
Yes, all the candidates want $15 per hour but, it's not viable in all areas.. does BS pay his
Cha
Sep 2015
#126
#6 Hillary has stated that voting for the IWR was a mistake, and this was on DU earlier this week:
Sancho
Aug 2015
#82
Her mistake cost us 8 trillion dollars, countless lives, and ou security. Can't afford another.
grahamhgreen
Aug 2015
#92
Exactly. Without consequences to their actions, they'll continue to make more mistakes.
grahamhgreen
Sep 2015
#139
"Bernie is honest and the folks backing Hillary Clinton are not." All you have are insults and
Cha
Sep 2015
#123
When did we get used to having millionaire politicians? When did that become the new norm?
liberal_at_heart
Sep 2015
#143