benjipwns
Banned
You mistake giving money to the government corporation as "putting back into society."
Vox: Bernie Sanders's tax hikes are bigger than Donald Trump's tax cuts
- Thread starter noshten
- Start date
- Status
Boombloxer
Member
Less hyperbole, more actual listening would help you.
Yep. My taxes would increase a lot more than the few thousands some are acting like its nothing.
Yea, I already do this. You sorta have too; you can go without paying any taxes, but for a certain range of of income, it's pretty much just reduction.
Uh, me? Again, people are acting like some of us are balking as we sip Mimosas and eat crumpets, when the reality is far from that.
I'll see social security, but not really planning on it as a source of income. Don't really have to worry about medical either, pay $0, full coverage. I don't mind paying a bit more, but the increase Id see is total horseshit.
My insurance is so-so. It's a $83 a paycheck premium with a $5000 family deductible that's paid into with pretax funds. It's not too bad as it lowers my taxable income.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
$14k more a year? Fuck you Bernie, you and the rest of the government will still fucking waste my money.
SoRuffShoNuff
Member
I pay 15k a year extra in taxes for 20 years just so my 100k medical bill later in life is covered? Yeah under that plan I'm in the hole 200k. I'd rather keep that money in my pocket thank you very much.
Zoe
Member
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/friedman-memo-1.pdf
Code:
Family Income $ 50,000
Health insurance premiums $ 4,955
Health insurance deductibles $ 1,318
2.2% income-based premium on households $ 466
Savings $ 5,807
Savings share of income 12%Based on a family of four with a family insurance plan.
Universal healthcare is "wasting money"? Okay...
TheChewyWaffles
Member
Until this government can prove it can do anything efficiently, then absolutely it is.
brainchild
Banned
All of you are free to challenge the veracity of their data and statistics; I was just explaining the basis for how the tax hike would affect citizens. If you don't believe them because you think that their numbers are wrong, that's an entirely different argument.
As far as the costs in medical bills, there's always the risk that what you pay over the long term is more than what you end up benefiting from over the long term, but that applies to any insurance plan. Conversely, there's always the chance that what you pay for with Sanders healthcare over the long term is significantly less than what you end up benefiting from over the long term, and since it's always better to err on the side of caution when it comes to your health, I think the investment is more than worth the risk. Of course, you're free to disagree, but there is no right or wrong on this matter (since we can't predict when someone will have an astronomical medical bill) just a difference in preference.
boredofcanada
Member
If it improves the standard of living for all of us then I'm all for it.
Zoe
Member
The employer pays the income tax increase, which for a 50K income would be considerably lower than what they currently pay.
The employee gets a 2.2% tax, the employer gets a 6.2% tax.
Edit: And that 2.2% tax is only on taxable income, which for a family of four with standard deductions is $28,800.
Social Security is one of the most efficient programs in the nation and has never missed a payment. DARPA is also very efficient. Most government programs are miles more efficient than anything in the private sector especially when properly funded and staffed. Most private ventures are full of waste and fail after the first few years.
Last year, at the age of 27, I had a few routine physicals, dental visits (just cleanings), and a colonoscopy. I can't look up the dental bills at the moment, or the costs of my monthly sertraline and methylphenidate prescriptions, but,
When you look at my premiums, my portion of the claims, and going off of memory of what the dental and medicine bills have routinely been, my total medical expenses were roughly 4K last year. As a healthy 27 year old with 1 diagnostic procedure and routine care.
The tax increase would be a wash.
When you look at my premiums, my portion of the claims, and going off of memory of what the dental and medicine bills have routinely been, my total medical expenses were roughly 4K last year. As a healthy 27 year old with 1 diagnostic procedure and routine care.
The tax increase would be a wash.
brainchild
Banned
And that's just for routine/preventative healthcare. If you broke your jaw next week, the tax hike would be a net positive.
You also can't look at the taxes in a vacuum. 95 percent of American households will likely see their take-home pay go up under Bernie Sanders' tax plans.
http://usuncut.com/politics/sanders-shoots-down-tpc-analysis-of-tax-plan/
http://usuncut.com/politics/sanders-shoots-down-tpc-analysis-of-tax-plan/
The chart is kind of disingenuous then, since it's lumping the employer's tax increase in with the employee's tax increase when most people are just going to look at it and think that their personal tax burden is going to increase by thousands of dollars. That said I guess it remains to be seen what extracting trillions of dollars in new taxes (or ending tax credits for providing health care) is going to do to wages.
benjipwns
Banned
Neither did Madoff until the end.
By what standard? What government programs are directly competing with the same services in the private sector without using their political leverage?
That's a good thing, the problem with the monopoly corporate state is that it won't go out of business no matter how bad its practices.
Medicare does not have the bargaining power of private drug plans. It's actually artificially handicapped.
brainchild
Banned
Zoe
Member
Yeah, there have been people saying that since this was first posted. Guess you can blame the author.
benjipwns
Banned
It basically sets the prices for a lot of stuff though simply because of its market size.
It was dumb not to make Medicare For All the public option.
TheLaughingStock
Member
http://www.cfapubs.org/doi/abs/10.2469/faj.v21.n6.127
There's literature spanning north of 70 years that you can read for free from both public and private sector as well.
If taxes are forecasted over the projection to be over $15T and spending at $14T, then the federal gov't took a contractionary stance on the fiscal side. And other factors will have to offset the taxes. 15 > 14.
benjipwns
Banned
This is a right-wing myth promoted by shady corporate interests.
So this seems very good actually
Note the asterisk: Employers are assumed to be willing to pay their workers wages that are equal to what employers now pay in total costs for cash wages, health insurance, and payroll taxes.
People actually believe this will happen? This is sheer stupidity on par with 'if we cut taxes, the wealth will trickle down!' The only people who think that corporations will 'pass the savings' (and not just the savings, but the entire employer-side costs of their insurance plans) onto their employees has either never worked a day in their lives or has only worked at an employer with a couple employees. Having to base your numbers on the altruism of corporations (especially rich coming from a group of people who consider corporations to be the devil) is asking for failure.
Social Security is a time bomb. I am 25 and I am paying weekly into a system I will never see a dime of. That is why I have a 401K. I know I won't see that social security check.
brainchild
Banned
And just how much shittiness should we extrapolate from these employers and compile into presentable data? The reality is that there really isn't a better alternative assumption. You could also assume that no employer would pass on the savings, but that would be equally unrealistic.
Some employers WILL pass on the savings, and that will drive competition between employers, fighting for employees. So in the end, it won't be about altruism, but capitalism.
thelastcrusader
Banned
Fuck this shit and fuck taxes. Tenemos familias Bernie, can't be paying these kinds of taxes.
brainchild
Banned
Bernie would never get these tax increases passed anyway so it's a moot point but living on Long Island, I'm def cool with no more tax increases. It's funny I consider myself liberal but as I'm getting older and really entrenched in the work force (and thinking about home ownership) I find myself becoming more and more fiscally conservative.
God Dayumm
Banned
No, but Israel, Afghanistan and Syria are. And Bernie has prorities in those
SoRuffShoNuff
Member
Marty Chinn
Member
Here's a simple way to check; how many people get the full value or anything of their health care value added to their paycheck when they opt out of taking the benefit right now? That should tell you if they will or not. Go talk to your HR person and ask them how much larger your paycheck will get.
God Dayumm
Banned
People don't understand why employers offer healthcare and other benefits instead of cash. It is like opting out of vacations; I'm not going to be reimbursed for them unless it is my quit day and had some days left. And this another reason why any savings will not be passed down.
Zoe
Member
You missed the first part of that asterisk. According to this, the 6.2% employer healthcare contribution reduces your tax liability. The average person doesn't currently pay 6% of their salary towards premiums. The 2.2% employee contribution is then taken out of that lower taxes liability which means the effective rate is lower than that.
brainchild
Banned
You can make as many false equivalencies as you want; I'm not taking the bait.
This situation isn't even remotely the same as a company having to overhaul their entire payroll process. Apples to oranges.
I have yet to see a fair breakdown of Sanders' proposals that wasn't later exposed to have connections to opposing interests. This analysis isn't terrible but it isn't quite fair...
In fact, I just looked this up and Wikipedia says, "In 2002, tax specialists who had served in the Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton administrations established the Tax Policy Center to provide analysis of tax issues". Of course. All of those were corporatist administrations. That may not affect their analysis, but there is a real chance that it does. Simply being based in Washington means that this could be an establishment interpretation of his tax proposals.
As the Sanders' campaign pointed out in response to the TPC analysis, TPC framed their analysis in a vacuum without accounting for the overall savings most Americans would have. That seem like an easy way to misrepresent the entire point of his tax policy, which is part of a bigger picture to bring money back to the lower and middle classes... Money that should have been going in their direction to begin with. The Vox article doesn't really come off that negatively. But nevertheless, it is conveyed out of context. What use does the average American have for a tax analysis without the appropriate context, when it is really part of a bigger picture?
I have learned better than to suspend all disbelief with this kind of news story. The media and "think tanks" have not been conveying the whole truth during this election.
And my opinion is that the higher tax brackets should have been paying more to begin with, so I can't really sympathize with them or think of it as a loss. The system was skewed in their favor, and it needs to be rebalanced. Unless you disagree with taxation altogether, it has its purpose and it has not been doing its job supporting the lower and middle class.
In fact, I just looked this up and Wikipedia says, "In 2002, tax specialists who had served in the Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton administrations established the Tax Policy Center to provide analysis of tax issues". Of course. All of those were corporatist administrations. That may not affect their analysis, but there is a real chance that it does. Simply being based in Washington means that this could be an establishment interpretation of his tax proposals.
As the Sanders' campaign pointed out in response to the TPC analysis, TPC framed their analysis in a vacuum without accounting for the overall savings most Americans would have. That seem like an easy way to misrepresent the entire point of his tax policy, which is part of a bigger picture to bring money back to the lower and middle classes... Money that should have been going in their direction to begin with. The Vox article doesn't really come off that negatively. But nevertheless, it is conveyed out of context. What use does the average American have for a tax analysis without the appropriate context, when it is really part of a bigger picture?
I have learned better than to suspend all disbelief with this kind of news story. The media and "think tanks" have not been conveying the whole truth during this election.
And my opinion is that the higher tax brackets should have been paying more to begin with, so I can't really sympathize with them or think of it as a loss. The system was skewed in their favor, and it needs to be rebalanced. Unless you disagree with taxation altogether, it has its purpose and it has not been doing its job supporting the lower and middle class.
AstroNut325
Member
Even if it brings healthcare and education to them?
AstroNut325
Member
So we're stuck with the private healthcare system and costly university system forever?
thelastcrusader
Banned
Correct, even if. Those taxes are ridiculous.
Private Healthcare isn't in a great place but It's possible to introduce reforms instead of completely socializing the issue.
I don't know about other states, but in my state it's really easy to get a lottery scholarship, you just have to be committed enough to make good grades and keep at it.
SoRuffShoNuff
Member
Both seem like situations where it is stated that savings by the rich/corporations will find their way down to employees. For someone who spends every stump speech barking on how corporations are greedy its strange that Bernie is hinging the effectiveness of his health care proposal on corporations not being greedy.
Unless his plan includes some law that forces employers to hand over any savings in their healthcare costs directly to their employees in the form of salary i wouldnt trust any of these potential savings numbers.
Marty Chinn
Member
Ya, I was just having this debate yesterday with someone who made the false assertion that people were actually aware and had the knowledge of how their benefits fit into the equation and of course would demand compensation.
Actually it's not a terrible comparison. Trickle down economics is the government giving financial benefits to businesses through taxes with the idea that gain in finances would help grow the company, increase wages and benefit the people under them. That's been shown to be false.
Here this would be the government giving financial benefit to businesses by removing the cost burden of providing health care with the hope that those savings will be passed on to the people under them in the form of wage increases.
It's a similar situation. If businesses don't pass it on when they receive financial tax gains why would they have any incentive to do it here when they receive a different financial tax gain?
No, it is the same because people don't expect to be compensated when the opt out of using their health care benefit now, nor do companies compensate them usually. So why all of a sudden would people expect to be compensated under this plan when their current thinking does not place a monetary value on the benefit? They are going to see either way that they are getting health care like they do now when they opt out to use someone else's and don't expect anything in return. People don't associate a dollar value to their benefits as part of their total compensation even though they should.
Yep this. Just to add on, people don't even know how much companies are paying for the benefit so how can they even begin to have an expectation of how much they are owed?
TheFuzz
Member
That's a great theory... However, I have a problem paying 10% more of my salary to help "those around me" when I can use that 10% to handle my children's tuition and medical expenses without letting the government do it for me.
If someone could implement those ideas it'd be great, however.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Over time, I think the wages would go up to reflect the globalized marked. Things have a way of readjusting itself over time. In many countries with similar health care, the wages also become much higher. I think it's about taking the plunge first of all.
The other thing you have to consider that public universities being free will most likely lower the price of private educations to remain competitive and an attraction option. Of course top schools like Harvard and such, probably not, but a good chunk of high quality univs would probably be a lot cheaper. A better and happier society has a tendency foster that same tendency in other areas
)eBay Huckster
Member
In the event that you check this thread again: he actually agrees with you on that point (re: the government end, at least), he's just being snarky.
- Status