What will happen when the billionaires and the corporations are gone?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

Bernie's plans for free health care and free college depend on high tax rates for the wealthy and the corporations. But according to him they shouldn't exist at all. When The Revolution comes, people won't be allowed to become very wealthy (although I assume mere millionaires will be OK now that Bernie is one), and the existing big corporations will be broken up and new ones won't be allowed to become large. If that happens, the source of taxes to pay for those social programs will be gone or at least substantially diminished. How will free health care and free college be paid for if there are no geese to lay those golden eggs any more? Can we have it both ways? No Mike Bloombergs, no Jeff Bezoses, no Bill Gateses, no Warren Buffets, no Exxons, no Amazons, no Apples, no Berkshire Hathaways, but we still can fund social programs? How will that work? Can we hear from Bernie on that?

[at140]

1. Small businesses create lion's share of new jobs

not the big international corporations who actually export jobs to cheaper labor countries.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. But how can we tax them if they are not allowed to exist?

This isn't about jobs, it's about taxes.

[at140]

5. I don't think Sanders wants to do away with small businesses

It is only the mega corporations and mega Billionaires who export jobs and manufacturing to cheaper labor countries.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. But those large corporations are the ones which would pay the taxes

if the tax structure is improved, which it should be. Joe's Bait & Tackle, Inc., isn't going to be paying the millions in taxes needed to support social programs. Bernie is trying to kill the goose, so where are the golden eggs going to come from? Not small businesses, that's for sure; anyhow, most small businesses are S corporations in which the income is taxed to the individual owners and there is no separate corporate tax.

[at140]

11. I got 2% tax cut (it seems) and giant corporations got 40% tax cut

Yeah, I ain't shedding no tears for the giants. Some of them giants don't pay ANY TAXES (see link below),
while if I forget to list my $12 interest from the bank, IRS sends me a nasty letter.
So yeah, the giants are no golden goose, they are the giant blood suckers.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/general-electric-taxes_n_2852094

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. They could be if tax reform could be accomplished,

and that's the whole point I'm trying to make. How can social programs be funded without taxation of those who can afford to be taxed? And if tax reform is accomplished but there's nobody to pay the amount of tax needed to find social programs, what will happen to those programs?

[redqueen]

13. So let me see if I understand. They're avoiding paying federal taxes now,

so we shouldn't tax them, because then they will... continue to not pay taxes?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. That's the exact opposite of what I mean.

They should be taxed. How else are we going to pay for free college and free health care?

[redqueen]

18. Do you think he's going to Thanos them out of existence?

That they'll all suddenly disappear simply because he's president?

What exactly are you envisioning that is prompting this thread?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. That's my question.

Bernie seems to think large corporations and very rich people are inherently bad. What does he think should be done with them?

[redqueen]

21. Are you being facetious?

From what I understand he thinks that the rich *not paying their fair share of taxes* is a bad thing, and ditto for large corporations.

Probably also thinks that some of these megacorporations should be broken up, as well. I agree.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. I agree 100% that they are not paying their fair share of taxes.

But Bernie's rhetoric seems to go beyond that. He seems to want corporations and billionaires (not millionaires, of course, now that he's one) to be nonexistent, which means - what? Breaking up all the corporations? Confiscating assets? Or is it OK for them to continue to exist as long as they pay taxes corresponding to their obligation to carry part of the financial burdens of society? That's what's not clear.

[redqueen]

23. Here's an explanation of the "billionaires shouldn't exist" quore

When Sanders said as much, he was explaining his plans for a wealth tax and a National Wealth Registry. "This proposal does not eliminate billionaires, but it eliminates a lot of the wealth that billionaires have," he said, "and I think that's exactly what we should be doing."
https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-responds-bernie-sanders-billionaires-shouldnt-exist-2019-10?amp

[redqueen]

24. I couldn't find any quote about corporations but I did find this about his plan.

Unsurprisingly, it doesn't say anything about putting them all out of business.

In fact, it looks pretty solid! But I can see why it would have a lot of crooked boards of directors nervous!

Overall, this proposal could have enormous impact on the current makeup of the US economy. A Rutgers University study on employee ownership found that employee stock ownership plans have been successful in increasing workers’ assets and in closing racial and gender wealth gaps in the workplace. And research from countries like Germany, which have codetermination policies in place, have much higher levels of pay equality, and have seen positive results on productivity and innovation.

https://www.vox.com/2019/10/14/20912221/bernie-sanders-corporate-accountability-ftc-merger-tax

[Hoyt]

33. Warren's "Economic Patriotism" in a nutshell -- America First, screw poor foreign

workers, treat them like scabs, and plan on endless wars.

Sorry, international racism ain’t my thing.

[msongs]

2. then we go after the multi millionaires with cushy retirements and health care plans lol nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. The billionaires have the really big bucks ripe for taxation.

If there aren't any more of them, can we squeeze the mere millionaires enough to pay for free health care and free college for everybody?

[democratisphere]

10. Bernie is a millionaire.

Millionaires would be exempt.

[at140]

17. It would require 66,000 Bernie's wealth to make ONE Bloomberg's wealth

[dbolski]

38. There would be more millionaires to tax, so even at a smaller tax rate

it would still add up to the same amount, and no Bernie never said millionaires should be exempt from taxation. He did say he wants to raise taxes on himself.

[Moostache]

7. Your premise is flawed though...

The concept you seem to be promoting is not accounting for the nature of progressive taxation, instead focusing on the "fairness" argument of the uber-wealthy.



Billionaires being taxed at a high rate does not stop tax collection at lower levels, not in any sense. It simply begins to level the field from the top down. If Billionaires are forced into lower tax brackets due to divestment from their corporate or business entities, then that money does not evaporate and disappear from the overall economy. It is simply circulated through the larger economy instead of coagulating inside the investment vehicles of a single person.

Our current tax structure, especially when considering capital gains rates and corporate giveaways, is a classic regressive system - allowing the richest among our society to pay LESS as an overall percentage of wealth than the poorest pay.

In addition to income taxes becoming regressive more than progressive in reality, the poor are also disproportionally hit by duties on alcohol, tobacco, and other 'sin taxes' where governments raise revenues by taxing activities that are more likely to occur among lower income brackets.

Billionaires can all disappear tomorrow and the taxes that would be due on the money they "earn" would simply need to be distributed wider and taxed at lower rates but still generating the same revenue stream to fund government services and programs to help equalize access to things that currently are gated off by income rates - like healthcare, education, business and financial opportunities and more.

Distribution is looked at as a dirty word in politics because of the cheap thrills of attack ads and the minuscule attention span of the "undecided" voter. In reality, without fair distribution of capital, access and opportunity, you get the kind of wealth concentration we have right now....same as we had before the last Depression and calamitous era from 1929 through 1945. Proper, functional distribution of goods and services grows an economy, while proper distribution of the gains and wealth of nations drives a society to achieve more together than individuals can alone - even that is NOT measured in cars, boats, houses and bank statements but instead by health and happiness of the population, percentages of people in meaningful careers and working at tasks that bring adequate remuneration to provide for a family without the stigma of "welfare" when one is employed and working full time hours (or more)....

We're on that EXACT same trajectory now...democracy is on the ropes around the world, the rule of law is dead in America and the climate disaster is going to force a lot of people to do things that they would never have thought possible in 1985 or 2005, but by 2025 (without MAJOR structural changes across the world) may become inevitable.

[Bradshaw3]

8. Managed to pay for WWII while reining in corporate greed

Truman headed a commission to make sure of it. Yet the U.S. was able to fund not only our war effort but we had lend-lease and backed Russia, then had the Marshal Plan. All without the truly rich gouging our country as they are now. Yes, we can exist without economic inequality. We actually do better as history shows. Your "point" is one repubs have made for years. Funny how it's dredged up on a Democratic site.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. I thought it was a fair question. I'm very much in favor of taxing the rich

and eliminating corporate loopholes. It's just that I've never heard Bernie explain how it's all going to work if he wants to eliminate the sources of those very high taxes. The top marginal tax rate in 1948 was 91% for individuals and 38% for corporations; now it's 37% and 21% respectively. My point is, why not restructure the tax rates so as to take maximum advantage of the wealthiest individuals and corporations instead of getting rid of billionaires and corporations with the result that those in the highest tax brackets are gone? Why is this not a fair question? I am asking whether it is possible to do both.

[redqueen]

14. I think that's what's meant by "get rid of".

To my ears, when he says "get rid of" billionaires and hugely profitable corporations that pay no federal taxes, he means make it so that billionaires and hugely profitable corporations actually pay their fair share, by reforming taxation.

[DanTex]

16. LOL. Don't worry, there will still be corporations and rich people.

The rich will be a bit less rich, corporations will pay people higher wages, and everyone will have access to healthcare, education, etc.

[melman]

19. LOL

What about the billionaires!?!

[Hav]

25. Without a small group that is supposed to pay for everything,

we'd actually have to create a sustainable foundation to secure the funding for ambitious and worthwhile plans for generations. That means it's payed in taxes by everyone. It'd be worth it in my opinion but it's harder to sustain for certain cases, like an aging demographic.

[Kurt V.]

26. Civilization may actually survive. There is a better way if we stop monetizing

our own analytical thought process

[Blue_true]

36. Good luck with that.

Maybe you should study up on how communist systems REALLY worked. Despite the hatred of it by some here, capitalism incentivize innovation, because people know that a unique idea will allow them to build a business and earn a living. If everyone was sitting around waiting for their fruit for being alive, there would be few people with a reason to create those fruit.

[Kurt V.]

37. ppl never had innovative ideas before capitalism? and where did i mention communism

also i read plenty. about 50 to 60 books a year. here's one for you: American Capitalism- j.k. gailbraithe

[Blue_true]

39. As soon as there were humanoids that could communicate, there was capitalism.

Despite what you hope to believe, bartering IS a form of capitalism.

[Kurt V.]

41. Simply not true. Here's a couple more for you: Leviathon - Hobbes

the wealth of nations- smith. Seriously give them some consideration and see if you still feel the same way.

[Blue_true]

42. Bartering, the earliest form of trading is not capitalism? Holy Hell, that is a new in history

claim.

Explain to me. When has socialism ever worked? You can come up with some mythical past society, but the fact is socialism has never worked anywhere and humans have been trading one item for another item or for money since the dawn of humans.

[Kurt V.]

43. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up socialism/ communism. put that aside except for the family

unit, which is socialism. Nothing im claiming is new but a reasonable consensus of history. also im done with trying very hard to be polite to you.

[Devil Child]

27. I often lose sleep worrying about the uncertain future facing billionaires

I grew up in a union household which voted Democratic due to their advocacy for the working class. Disgusts me to see tears wasted on billionaire anxieties over the workers who made “their” industries function.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. I'm not at all worried about billionaires. I say tax the hell out of them.

I'm simply wondering what's to be done with them, and whether, if at some point there aren't any billionaires paying large amounts of tax, the social programs they're supposed to be supporting can still be supported.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

28. Where do you come up with this stuff?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

30. Same place everybody else comes up with stuff. Just ruminating.

If you can answer my questions, please do.

[Kurt V.]

44. ..

[applegrove]

29. Financial companies are running to the european nordic countries

because there is so much cash to invest there.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ca.finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/wall-street-targets-nordics-latest-223000863.html

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

32. Tax rates in those countries are much higher than ours.

[applegrove]

35. Here is the article:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ca.finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/wall-street-targets-nordics-latest-223000863.html

[Blue_true]

34. Don't you know? Don't you know?

There will be two chickens in every pot and a Cadillac in every driveway.

Not really, not close to really.

[Zolorp]

40. BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!