Off Topic

[Hunchman801]

I don't know about that, but Bernie's gonna make college free and he's pretty cool.

Free education should be a right. But this is populist bullshit:

Sanders has suggested that he would be open to a 90% top marginal tax rate (a rate that last existed during the years after World War II) for the wealthiest earners, and has proposed a top marginal rate of 65% for the federal estate tax, up from the current 40% rate.

[Keane]

lol that's a very vague and misleading edit, guess bill o'reilly had to do something when his bernie argument started becoming a meme.

Short version: take my word for it and know that the 90% tax rate is a myth

Long version: bernie has directly denied a 90% tax rate numerous times, in debates and interviews. Second, it's a marginal rate, not a regular rate, so it wouldn't be like sanders would actually come and take 900,000$ from your one million fortune. During WWII the rate was at 94% I believe, and the wealthy weren't suffering as bad you'd think: With a marginal rate, plus deductions (which take off a lot of potential sources of the tax), you could say that it was actually more a 40% rate. Still pretty high back then, but again Sanders isn't aiming to do that exactly, and this is a very different time period economically.

Sanders' proposal makes sense when you keep that in mind, and apply it to the context he uses it in: Let's say he puts a marginal tax rate on the extremely wealthy, then all that means is that all the money they earn on top off the billion they already posses, and even then they can still grow their fortune despite the tax.

Sanders doesn't mean to tax anyone but the super wealthy elite, and they need to be as to prevent cases of people who are too wealthy to be stopped: The Koch Brothers are investing 800 million dollars in backing republican candidates and signing contracts with them. That literally means that because they are rich, they get to have about 10,000 times the amount of political influence that a middle class person holds, just because they own more money and can afford it (and that's without mentioning that the koch brothers have a fucking horrible agenda).

Of course Sanders vows to make that illegal too, but there still remain too many ways that billionaires have direct advantages by using lobbyists which gives them political and economical influence that they shouldn't even have in the first place, and he can't promise to tackle it all. Comcast wants to push the TPP and kill Net Neutrality? The way it should go is that Comcast goes "we want this" and that's that, but when Comcast is rich as fuck and they afford an army of lobbyists to bribe politicians and sign contracts that push their agenda into political power, then suddenly Comcast is acting like an oligarch in a democratic nation. If you tax the shit out of them and make them loose that money, then you take out a lot of issues like these, and it's not like them only having just 1 billion dollars is going to make them starve or fail to live the luxury they might "deserve." They're still fucking huge, rich people who can play philanthropists and buy 10 mansions, they just can't corrupt politics.

TL;DR, Bernie is a fucking nightmare for corrupt corporations, and they're pulling out the big guns against him. If he actually won, the uproar from wall street, corporations, internet providers, lobbyists, everything, would be as historical and massive as trump actually building his dumb wall.

[Pirez]

There should be an amendment in every nation of the world to redifine the word "lobby" as what it really is : corruption. Every fucking time a politician tries to attack he corporate world, tons of cash pop up out of nowhere to fund counter campaign, and spoiler alert : that's why Bernie can't win unless he gets neutered on his views against corporations. If he does indeed win, they'll threaten to leave the US. That's what happened in France in the 2012 campaign and now our president is the corporate world's bitch.

What I especially hate about it is that big business constantly evade or tweak the laws, or corrupt politicians to help pass new ones, but as soon as the law asks them for something, they start to cry like little bitches. Like in the case of the San Bernardino investigation. The law ordered Apple to help the FBI with the investigation by creating a backdoor to the Iphone of the shooters. Now, I understand the arguments against doing that and I'm kinda with Apple as they disagree, but what was infuriating is that Facebook standed with Apple behind the principle that it would be an invasion of our privacy. Bitch you sell our personnal informations to every advertiser on the planet ever. STFU.

[Hunchman801]

Long version: bernie has directly denied a 90% tax rate numerous times, in debates and interviews. Second, it's a marginal rate, not a regular rate, so it wouldn't be like sanders would actually come and take 900,000$ from your one million fortune. During WWII the rate was at 94% I believe, and the wealthy weren't suffering as bad you'd think: With a marginal rate, plus deductions (which take off a lot of potential sources of the tax), you could say that it was actually more a 40% rate. Still pretty high back then, but again Sanders isn't aiming to do that exactly, and this is a very different time period economically.

Sanders' proposal makes sense when you keep that in mind, and apply it to the context he uses it in: Let's say he puts a marginal tax rate on the extremely wealthy, then all that means is that all the money they earn on top off the billion they already posses, and even then they can still grow their fortune despite the tax.

Thanks for the explanation, but I know quite well what a marginal tax rate is. As for the deductions you are talking about, they are where the problem lies: most of them are, along with the various practices of tax optimization, available in practice to the super rich only, who can thanks to them benefit from overall tax rates lower than that of the middle class. Simplify the tax system to make optimization impossible, get rid of those deductions, and you won't have to bother with tax rates. In the end, a rather low flat tax with no ways around it would be fairer than the current system.

Sanders doesn't mean to tax anyone but the super wealthy elite, and they need to be as to prevent cases of people who are too wealthy to be stopped: The Koch Brothers are investing 800 million dollars in backing republican candidates and signing contracts with them. That literally means that because they are rich, they get to have about 10,000 times the amount of political influence that a middle class person holds, just because they own more money and can afford it (and that's without mentioning that the koch brothers have a fucking horrible agenda).

Of course Sanders vows to make that illegal too, but there still remain too many ways that billionaires have direct advantages by using lobbyists which gives them political and economical influence that they shouldn't even have in the first place, and he can't promise to tackle it all. Comcast wants to push the TPP and kill Net Neutrality? The way it should go is that Comcast goes "we want this" and that's that, but when Comcast is rich as fuck and they afford an army of lobbyists to bribe politicians and sign contracts that push their agenda into political power, then suddenly Comcast is acting like an oligarch in a democratic nation. If you tax the shit out of them and make them loose that money, then you take out a lot of issues like these, and it's not like them only having just 1 billion dollars is going to make them starve or fail to live the luxury they might "deserve." They're still fucking huge, rich people who can play philanthropists and buy 10 mansions, they just can't corrupt politics.

I think here again you are focusing on the wrong aspect of the problem. Taxing the super rich more so that they have less money to influence politics is a far-fetched, inefficient way when the real problem lies in the simple fact that private money can be used to fund political parties, candidates and their campaigns in the US. Just let the state hand out the money, make private funding illegal, tackle the lobby issue and once again, you won't need to worry about tax.

TL;DR: tax is and has been throughout the history of democracy the easy, popular and populist solution to attempt to fix most problems. It's failed almost every single time but why stop, because hey, why are those people rich and not me?

There should be an amendment in every nation of the world to redifine the word "lobby" as what it really is : corruption. Every fucking time a politician tries to attack he corporate world, tons of cash pop up out of nowhere to fund counter campaign, and spoiler alert : that's why Bernie can't win unless he gets neutered on his views against corporations. If he does indeed win, they'll threaten to leave the US. That's what happened in France in the 2012 campaign and now our president is the corporate world's bitch.

Do you mean when he realised that his irresponsible, infeasible, economically illiterate promises made no sense whatsoever and that all they would achieve was to ruin the country? As much as I agree with you on lobbies I don't see what they have to do with this.

Now, I understand the arguments against doing that and I'm kinda with Apple as they disagree, but what was infuriating is that Facebook standed with Apple behind the principle that it would be an invasion of our privacy. Bitch you sell our personnal informations to every advertiser on the planet ever. STFU.

By using Facebook, you agree to them using and selling your data. I don't think it is the case for iMessages.

[Pirez]

There should be an amendment in every nation of the world to redifine the word "lobby" as what it really is : corruption. Every fucking time a politician tries to attack he corporate world, tons of cash pop up out of nowhere to fund counter campaign, and spoiler alert : that's why Bernie can't win unless he gets neutered on his views against corporations. If he does indeed win, they'll threaten to leave the US. That's what happened in France in the 2012 campaign and now our president is the corporate world's bitch.

Do you mean when he realised that his irresponsible, infeasible, economically illiterate promises made no sense whatsoever and that all they would achieve was to ruin the country? As much as I agree with you on lobbies I don't see what they have to do with this.

How would you know it wouldn't have worked? World-renoun economists disagree between them so much it's a wonder why economics is a science and not a religion. The political consensus right now is that you make savings by spending more and spending less at the same time. How the fuck does that make any sense. When I was a kid, my parents told me that if I wanted something expensive I had to save money for it. I call this logic 101, but then again I'll never be president so who cares?[/quote]

Now, I understand the arguments against doing that and I'm kinda with Apple as they disagree, but what was infuriating is that Facebook standed with Apple behind the principle that it would be an invasion of our privacy. Bitch you sell our personnal informations to every advertiser on the planet ever. STFU.

By using Facebook, you agree to them using and selling your data. I don't think it is the case for iMessages.

I would have said that given the nasty shits that Steve Jobs did during his life it was likely, but he's dead so I wouldn't say. Glad to see that you think agreeing to something makes it ethical tough... Like signing weapon contracts with terrorists, I suppose (yeah, I went there).

[Hunchman801]

How would you know it wouldn't have worked? World-renoun economists disagree between them so much it's a wonder why economics is a science and not a religion. The political consensus right now is that you make savings by spending more and spending less at the same time. How the fuck does that make any sense. When I was a kid, my parents told me that if I wanted something expensive I had to save money for it. I call this logic 101, but then again I'll never be president so who cares?

Just look at how our economy has hardly recovered from the financial crisis yet some countries have fully recovered and beyond. Just look at our GDP growth, unemployment rate, job creation. Just look at the lack of prospect for the French and France alike. Nothing has been achieved, it is time to change this inefficient system and release the creativity, energy and talent of the French people.

Glad to see that you think agreeing to something makes it ethical tough... Like signing weapon contracts with terrorists, I suppose (yeah, I went there).

I never said it made it ethical, I said the individual was to blame, not the service provider. No one forces you to use Facebook. It is perfectly clear what will happen to your data in their terms and conditions. Criticizing them for doing what they said they'd do is beyond hypocritical. If you were to sign a contract with terrorists without being forced to do so, then don't try to push on the responsibility on them.

[Pirez]

I'm not pushing responsability on them, I just call bullshit when they cry about things being unethical and dangerous when they do the very same thing. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[Hunchman801]

I'm not pushing responsability on them, I just call bullshit when they cry about things being unethical and dangerous when they do the very same thing. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I understand your point of view, but there still is a major difference between those two cases: Facebook invades your privacy because you allowed it to. I don't remember agreeing to similar terms with the US government. Though in practice, it doesn't matter to them.

[Keane]

I think here again you are focusing on the wrong aspect of the problem. Taxing the super rich more so that they have less money to influence politics is a far-fetched, inefficient way when the real problem lies in the simple fact that private money can be used to fund political parties, candidates and their campaigns in the US. Just let the state hand out the money, make private funding illegal, tackle the lobby issue and once again, you won't need to worry about tax.

TL;DR: tax is and has been throughout the history of democracy the easy, popular and populist solution to attempt to fix most problems. It's failed almost every single time but why stop, because hey, why are those people rich and not me?

Well no, I disagree, redistribution of wealth can go a long way and fund a lot of philanthropy that should already be happening. The top 1% owns more than the bottom 40% or so, there is literally no good excuse for that imbalance - especially not when you've got so many records of bribery and corruption floating around those wealthy families. Sure the wealthy are getting taxed already, but they've obviously still got an overabundance of money that isn't being invested in anything...except a few billion dollars for lobbying and media. And again, even with marginal tax multi-billionaires will continue to exist.

The problem with a candidate like Clinton is that she's so bought up, and so part of the current problem, that when you vote her into office it's another four years without proper attention for the climate, another four years where the president is likely to approve some new legislation and laws that just strengthens their grip further, until eventually you get too deep in. What Obama is doing right now, with the TPP and all, that shit is terrifying: Not only is it a love letter to extending corporate influence in every area, but it's also near impossible to get it out once it's in. If Clinton gets in office, corps like Comcast will undoubtedly be standing on her doorstep, and she won't show them out.

And that system is now already so deep in that people are frightened that if you make their political corruption illegal that they'll "threaten to pull out." I think dependence of the rich should be reduced as much as possible, and instead have that wealth redistributed to the middle class, a class which a democracy should be relying on much more. Not until the necessary steps and risks are taken to step away from that grip will there ever be a change, and the more people vote for candidates who don't anything, the more you run out of time to actually do that. Unfortunately, Sanders is a rare opportunity, and it can easily be another 4 - 12 years until a similar candidate appears. Imagine what happens when you've got an already broken system, with 12 more years to destroy it further, and a climate which is already beyond repair, and the whole holocaust is complete. And by that time all that eventual candidate can do is mop up the blood, if that isn't what Sanders would already be doing right now.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's getting scary, and i really think the only way to tackle it now is to just strip away all the roots of the corporate influence.

[Hunchman801]

You seem to have a big problem with some people being richer than others, saying that wealth should be redistributed. But you should not lump all rich people together, because there are two very different types: self-made and heirs. While the latter haven't done anything to deserve their wealth, the former have often worked hard, taken huge risks and created a lot more wealth than they have accumulated themselves, through job creation, contribution to GDP growth and innovation. So why tax them more?

I believe on the other hand that no one should be born rich, and that there should be a cap to how much money can be inherited by someone. Not only would that be a lot more efficient in terms of wealth redistribution, it would also be a lot fairer. It is similar, in a certain fashion, to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett's Giving Pledge: when they die, most of their wealth will go to charity, instead of being passed to their kids. Maybe this should be institutionalized.

[anaphasiia]

I believe on the other hand that no one should be born rich, and that there should be a cap to how much money can be inherited by someone. Not only would that be a lot more efficient in terms of wealth redistribution, it would also be a lot fairer. It is similar, in a certain fashion, to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett's Giving Pledge: when they die, most of their wealth will go to charity, instead of being passed to their kids. Maybe this should be institutionalized.

I agree with this. As things are currently, it might not go over so well, but if it's coupled with free education and healthcare, no one would have to worry.

[Fifo]

Windows 95 installation from floppy disks is painful:

[incognito]

Heh, from what I see Donald Trump isn't far of becoming president, what the murricans of the PC are thinking about this ?

[Bradandez]

Heh, from what I see Donald Trump isn't far of becoming president, what the murricans of the PC are thinking about this ?

Thinking you're a fool from believing the media tells you.

[Dart]

Heh, from what I see Donald Trump isn't far of becoming president, what the murricans of the PC are thinking about this ?

A) unnerved
B) insulted
C) in absolute denial, contrary to the two previous statements

[Bradandez]

Incognito believing in media is probably ironic in itself. He's being fed propaganda.

[Hunchman801]

Incognito believing in media is probably ironic in itself. He's being fed propaganda.

I'm not in the least bit surprised.

I agree with this. As things are currently, it might not go over so well, but if it's coupled with free education and healthcare, no one would have to worry.

And I agree indeed on free education and healthcare, we should focus on making the poor people richer, not the rich people poorer. It's not just about redistribution, it's also about wealth creation. I don't understand this obsession for tax which is nothing but a dangerous tendency to sink to the lowest common denominator.

[#Rubber mark#]

Well Trump says a lot of stupid things but he's far from wrong on every topic.

[Bradandez]

Trump's a dump. I doubt he'll become president. But listening to his proposals is pretty funny.

[#Rubber mark#]

While his proposals often don't make sense, they are the reflection of deep issues clearly overlooked by most politicians.