-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Vox: Bernie Sanders's tax hikes are bigger than Donald Trump's tax cuts
- Thread starter noshten
- Start date
- Status
Like the Democratic socialist economists that swear that a Bernie presidency will give us 8 years of 5% GDP growth? Both sides have their loons, to be honest.
The only people I'd trust to run the numbers is the GAO. That said, they'll never have to run these numbers because there's no danger of those tax brackets ever being brought within a mile of Congress.
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't mean to pick on you, you've just encapsulated perfectly a recurring theme on many of the posts in this thread. Yeah, obviously. Literally no one would disagree with what you just said, from tea partiers to communists. "If it's perfect, I'll support it." It offers absolutely no engagement with the discussion though - if it improves the standard of living for all, yes. But... does it? That's a pretty big "if" and ultimately it's those "if's" that make one person a Republican and another a Democrat. Contrary to an opinion that's riotously popular here on Gaf, most people actually do think that the party they support offers better policies, and not just for themselves. They just disagree with "the other party" on what's best.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Since the forecast AFAIK is 6.4% of GDP by 2080 are we talking a NK time bomb? Also, can you Paypal your SS check when you retire to me because I'm trying to save up for a boat and you're expecting no benefits from Congress via the Treasury. I promise you that I'll do good things with your $ and live it up. : )
shinra-bansho
Member
You're correct in that the economic incidence of a payroll tax on wages is typically measured going forward. And that it won't typically be observed as a direct pay cut. What economists tend to find is an impact on wage growth, regardless of the legal incidence falling on employers, be it on existing employees and new hires. There is varying reporting of this impact from empirical studies, all the way up to all of the incidence falling on employees, with varying findings on effects on employment.
Here are a few studies.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w5053
http://www.nber.org/papers/w6808
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1682041
From looking there has been a study/studies that showed no economic incidence on wages. So a 20% incidence isn't impossible either.
The theory is relatively basic though and applies generally to taxation, in that the more inelastic part of the market will bear the higher incidence. The supply of labour is generally seen as more inelastic and so it tends to be assumed that any payroll tax incidence will be borne more by the worker.
I just cast my vote for Hillary because of this thread.
It's nice that you can afford paying thousands of dollars more in taxes. Not everybody can. My landlord wants to kick me out right now. So this is a no brainer.
It's nice that you can afford paying thousands of dollars more in taxes. Not everybody can. My landlord wants to kick me out right now. So this is a no brainer.
Comparing Social Security to Madoff?
As someone from the UK I can't understand why so little people are voting for Bernie and I think that's a pretty common sentiment in most of Europe. It's worth paying more tax for stuff like health and education. Also your country has such as insane debt problem that really can't be ignored, realistically you'd need to raise taxes this much while cutting public services to have any chance of paying it off in the next century.
I see a lot of people not wanting to pay taxes because they feel they won't get their money's worth. Private insurance isn't profitable unless people as a whole didn't get their money's worth. Insurance by nature is a gamble and nearly every one accepts but are now mad that Bernie wants government to be the one that gambles?
That might create another Estonia. Also is not always bad. Government is not a household.
Marty Chinn
Member
It's quite simple really. Too many people are living paycheck to paycheck and are unable to save money. With so many people in this circumstance, the idea of suddenly taking several more thousands a year from them that they don't have available to begin with sounds extremely painful. There were plenty of people in this thread who supported Bernie until they realized how it would impact their finances. Simply put, they can't afford Bernie's tax proposals in their view.
djplaeskool
Member
Bernie wants to make one hell of an omelette.
He's going to need a shitload of eggs...
He's going to need a shitload of eggs...
Zoe
Member
Except you won't be paying thousands more in taxes.
And this is why you can't have nice things, America. I do feel your pain, I do.. but its this attitude that prevents things from actually happening. At least your reason seems more legitimate, while others in this thread are complaining about 100k salaries.
Frozenprince
Banned
And this is why you can't have nice things, America. I do feel your pain, I do.. but its this attitude that prevents things from actually happening. At least your reason seems more legitimate, while others in this thread are complaining about 100k salaries.
Just stop.
Elfforkusu
Member
Employers not having to pay for health insurance makes self-employment about a billion times more attractive.
The problem would solve itself.
Marty Chinn
Member
People aren't going to self employ themselves because health care is taken care of. That's a ludicrous conclusion.
I apologize for the meme, but surely I can't be the only one who think that the people of America author their own pain? Voted for Bush....TWICE, and now Trump is considered a serious contender for presidency. At this point, he's more likely to win than Sanders considering Sanders is most likely not even going to win the primary.
Frozenprince
Banned
You're looking at the wrong things and drawing the wrong conclusions, this whole thread has been nothing but a echo chamber of condescension (note that this is not directed at you per-say but everybody) against people who are expressing that they really cannot handle the impact to their quality of life, something very important to a lot of people.
The office of the president has far less importance than people would have you believe, the most important thing the next sitting president will be able to accomplish is which judges they appoint to the next Federal Supreme court because it will give one side or the other a super majority.
But the posting of things like "America deserves Trump" and "You're all a bunch of self serving selfish egotists" doesn't actually impact or grant any tangible benefit to what should be a dialect, a conversation, instead it's just empty moralizing over someones presupposed notion that they're more willing to embrace "true" progressiveism and thus, are naturally better people.
The direct connections and conflagrations between Europe/Canada and the US need to stop. The US isn't LIKE Canada and the EU, there are basic, fundamental structural and societal differences that are stark and which cannot be ignored, let alone dismissed. Population, demographics, income inequality, the public and private education and business sectors, that's just surface level differences. You can't just introduce broad, wide reaching and incredibly impactful legislation that changes the way the entirety of the american middle class lives without expecting that suddenly marginalized and bemoaned middle class to be a little pissed off about it. That doesn't mean that suddenly "Well just go out and vote for Trump then while the poor die on the street corners" is some valid way to respond to that.
The constant condescension that's been going on in this thread really doesn't help anyone.
Edit: What I mean by wrong conclusions from the wrong things, is that you can't look at the primary for either party and go "wow America WTF" because the people that vote in those aren't general America. They are the hard line, line in the sand party voters. They don't reflect American society as a whole, they never have.
Zoe
Member
The OP is misleading because it includes the employer's portion of the tax.
Try going straight to the source: https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/friedman-memo-1.pdf
I disagree. However, not because of the quoted reason of health care. It's just a natural trend in general with globalization and niche market outreach. That and furthermore, the increasing presence of automation. Corporations such as Walmart are this eras dinosaur. I don't expect them to last longer than two more decades. Not when passion businesses can be started from garages with technologies like 3D printing.
Commence the entrepreneurship revolution!
StopMakingSense
Member
I'm self employed only because I can now get health insurance on my own.
I kinda feel like the number of people who couldn't get insurance on their own is not really that high. Yes, Obamacare opened up self-employment options for people with pre-existing conditions -- I am one of them (though I'm still on employer provided health insurance). But at the same time there really aren't that many of us, and if you don't have a pre-existing condition there really aren't that many problems with being self-employed and getting health care.
Marty Chinn
Member
How many are doing this as far as a percentage of the population? It's a small number. That's not to say nobody will but it's not going to be a huge trend among the masses. That's why it's a ludicrous conclusion.
In the case of being self employed, you get to eat both sides of the tax (just as you do now, but more under Bernie's plan)
Gotdatmoney
Member
If you can't compare America to any of it's developed peers then why is this even a discussion? Everything is clearly fine then. /s
No one has insisted that the shock of something like what Bernie is proposing isn't going to be drastic. (so much so I think his plan is unrealistic in the current climate) People have been saying that the middle class in several other countries have taxation and structural services similar to what Bernie is proposing so it's not as though no one on planet earth could survive off that structure.
If Trump is going to be the Republican candidate and people are going to laugh off Bernie's plan like its hogwash then yeah, it's valid to imply there is something flawed with a large portion of America's thought process.
Fenderputty
Banned
Unless employers give all their previous healthcare contributions to their employees, it's a pretty big fuck you to the middle class. This tax plan would kill me unless mine did.
StopMakingSense
Member
Oh I'm not supporting Bernie (though I am for single payer), the way Marty had worded it made it seem like he felt no one would make the decision to become self employed because of healthcare.
I dug a little deeper on the Tax Policy Center and found this:
Sounds like trickle down economics.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-04/sanders-tax-plans-seen-raising-15-3-trillion-over-10-years
Also the Tax Policy Center is partly created the Brookings Institute which has conservative leanings.
I don't think this very credible.
Sounds like trickle down economics.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-04/sanders-tax-plans-seen-raising-15-3-trillion-over-10-years
Also the Tax Policy Center is partly created the Brookings Institute which has conservative leanings.
I don't think this very credible.
Marty Chinn
Member
Of course there's always going to be someone that does something. The point was there isn't going to be some mass trend that this change in how healthcare is handle that will be the turning point where people decide it's time to be self employed. The vast majority are going to get jobs through an employer rather than be self employed.
Did the math and a single person living in CA making $55k will have a federal tax increase of about $1k for a total tax burden of around $13.2k. This includes federal, state, and payroll (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
I pay $1k for a studio near LA (seriously lucky I found a place this cheap), ~$50 month electricity, $50 internet, $80 phone, $150 car insurance, $300 food, $150 gas, $250 car, +misc. Comes up to about $25-$30k a year just to live (not including entertainment) and lucky if I can save the remaining $10k a year. I fortunately have no school debt (GI bill) and free healthcare (VA), but some credit card debt and family obligations.
I'm living comfortably and I have no illusions that I'm fortunate to be where I'm at, but call me a pessimist for thinking free college for everyone will be a rough ride. A bachelors is standard in my company and it's looking more and more like I need an MBA to stay competitive. To be the devils advocate here, it feels like we will just trade in the college debt with post-grad level debt (~$95k for a mba at UCLA and that's just tuition). How many can really say they can be competitive in their industry and command their wages when everyone is similarly educated? Can someone from a country with free college education weigh in here? I'm curious about what it's like to have to compete in that environment.
Healthcare on the other hand I don't mind paying an extra $1k a year for everyone to receive.
I pay $1k for a studio near LA (seriously lucky I found a place this cheap), ~$50 month electricity, $50 internet, $80 phone, $150 car insurance, $300 food, $150 gas, $250 car, +misc. Comes up to about $25-$30k a year just to live (not including entertainment) and lucky if I can save the remaining $10k a year. I fortunately have no school debt (GI bill) and free healthcare (VA), but some credit card debt and family obligations.
I'm living comfortably and I have no illusions that I'm fortunate to be where I'm at, but call me a pessimist for thinking free college for everyone will be a rough ride. A bachelors is standard in my company and it's looking more and more like I need an MBA to stay competitive. To be the devils advocate here, it feels like we will just trade in the college debt with post-grad level debt (~$95k for a mba at UCLA and that's just tuition). How many can really say they can be competitive in their industry and command their wages when everyone is similarly educated? Can someone from a country with free college education weigh in here? I'm curious about what it's like to have to compete in that environment.
Healthcare on the other hand I don't mind paying an extra $1k a year for everyone to receive.
This is the way I saw it if companies that do pay for medical, would hopefully just pass those down as some sort of extra bonus on salary or paychecks.
But we know how that goes.
And I'm fine with a tax hike that generally makes a healthier, more educated or at least more opportunities for everyone else.
More than most of America
Question; you know how you occasionally see those random facebook posts that mention how the top 1% have 60%/most of the wealth and the rest is shared by the rest of us? If that is the case then wouldnt you tax then 45% and everyone else making like less than 100k pays nothing? Am i missin something or am I just bad at math?
dysonEA
Member
I live in California. We make well below 100k combined salary (and my wife is losing her job) we live in a tiny Appartment in a frumpy area. With no path to ever owning a home. Yet if we make what we do here somewhere else we'd afford a lot more. Higher taxes for us would kill us financially.
The relevant issue is the difference between wealth and income.
The top 1% have most of the wealth because they have most of the assets and stuff. But precisely because they have all the stuff already, it is not necessary for them to work, so they're less likely to have significant amounts of taxable income.
The lower and middle classes still contribute the majority of federal revenue, because they actually have to work for a living.
Elfforkusu
Member
I think job mobility (it's more than just self-employment) is a huge, obvious benefit of universal health care. That job mobility shifts negotiation leverage back to workers.
But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree?
Yeah. We really should change the progressive tax rates to reflect the cost of living in different areas of the country. But I think it would also quickly bankrupt the country if we did.
Zoe
Member
But how much does an average self-employed person pay for health insurance? Is it more or less than 8.4% of their income?
backflip10019
Member
So those making toward the middle-upper of that echelon living in NYC and SF and barely making it by will get completely fucked.
SoRuffShoNuff
Member
People don't think that the notion of universal health care is bad and we know there will be costs associated with it. The problem is that most adults in this country have grown up with a certain cost structure framing their monetary decisions and a 10% extra tax is not a burden many can withstand. The 15k a year this tax would place on me is essentially my mortgage. I didn't plan on a second mortgage being placed on me so that tax would have a huge negative impact on my life.
To offset this tax increase Bernie is saying companies would increase their employees salaries to compensate them. Only the incredibly naive believe that would actually happen. Bernie rails over and over about how corporations are greedy and don't fairly compensate their employees, if he feels that way why does he believe they will stop being greedy and start fairly compensating us when this Healthcare cost is shifting from them to us? I haven't seen anything stating there will be a law forcing companies to increase salaries in line with the healthcare cost shift so Bernie's plan is as good as dead in my eyes.
Zoe
Member
You won't be paying 15k. You'll be paying 2.2% of your taxable income in lieu of your current premiums.
To me, they won't and they will.
Let's be honest, everything in this country's always in a state of flux. Most people haven't seen wages increase with production, they didn't see wages increase during the recovery, businesses will absolutely try and keep that money regardless. Fine. That's true.
The government can react to degrees with the tax code. If businesses do not pass anything on to employees there's nothing saying that the government can't modify their tax code, or later implement some kind of minimum wage increase, or a myriad of other things. One thing, two things for this discussion really, is certain, wages already aren't going up and health care prices will continue to rise.
Before Obamacare it was the same exact story. What you have here in this period of transition are a myriad of winners and losers. Companies everywhere were looking to change their health plans, usually for the worse as far as the employee is concerned. Some probably hastened their plans to go to a shitty plan because of Obamacare. Some probably kept the same course they were always going to do and some people gained health care. there were winners and losers that are different than if Obamacare had never passed, because even then some companies would've switch to lesser plans, or passed a higher cost to the employee, dropped their plans, and sure, some companies would have started offering plans for the first time, but Obamacare did change the dynamic.
This would do the same thing but on a larger scale. I have no doubt there will be losers under Bernie's plan, or anyone else who proposes a UHC scheme. For one, the most well off will lose something no matter the implementation. But the middle class will definitely have it's share of people who come out better and those who come out worse. Because, like you said, not all companies are going to increase their wages. Hell, some companies may go under! Course they may go under anyways and even if this plan doesn't get passed they may not raise your wages either.
So what you have here is a fear of the unknown. I get it. But more importantly I think you need to look at the longer term picture, here. It'd be changing the game so to speak. If UHC becomes a thing people will want it. It'd be hard to take away. And not everyone would tolerate being pushed into poverty from corporations. If that happens either one of two things will happen, the people'd either demand to go back to how it was or start demanding higher wages. So some people might lose initially but it's not like they're guaranteed to lose forever. Which granted isn't a great thing to say but I don't think shaking things up should be met with such dread.
Further, Bernie's plan's just that, a plan. There's nearly a 100% chance that if he were to get elected AND somehow get into a situation where it'd get passed, both very high hurdles, that it's not going to be exactly the same as you see here. What you're looking at is the idea. The idea that health care should be offered to everyone. The details of that can be worked out but to work out those details you need someone actually fighting for it, you're sure as hell not going to work it out by not advocating it.
And thinking long term I think this is extremely important because I think automation's going to only hurt us further. If we don't establish that basic healthcare's a human right, the amount of people who don't have it now will look like a fantastic number compared to the amount of US citizens who won't have it in the future.
Pretty much. Your whole post is good, but I'm just gonna respond to this particular bit.
Whether or not you're happy with the idea of raising taxes to provide a better life for millions of people now, the fact is that it will be absolutely necessary in a couple decades. Maybe some people think it's okay to wait a couple of decades until it's necessary, but, in my opinion, we should start as soon as possible so that we can be ready. Better to be proactive than reactive with this sort of thing... Otherwise, life is going to be very, very, very hard for a lot of people, and it's going to come out of nowhere for most. They won't expect it. One day: "Sorry, we've got robots to do your job now. Byeeeee." Where will they find a new job? Somewhere else that's also being automated? Nah. Ain't gonna work like that. The future is bleak, right now, but it doesn't have to be.
- Status