Support NeoGAF

[Marty Chinn]

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?

What you're talking about is the potential benefits of self employment. That doesn't matter. What I'm saying is people aren't going to do it. It takes a certain type of person to do self employment. A lot of people don't fit that criteria. That's even before factoring in not all jobs are a fit for self employment. Combine those two factors together, and you're not going to get some mass shift of people going self employment simply because of a change in how health care coverage works. There's no reason that's going to be some big tipping point. Those who are capable of self employment are more likely to have already done it for other factors that are much more beneficial to their immediate situation than simply health care. In a perfect world, sure more people would push towards being self employed but that's not what the reality is.

 

[harSon]

Vox really fucked up. The report they're citing even says

How so? Is that assuming everyone's health care costs thousands of dollars a year, or that most employers on average would pass along savings on their end to the employee?

 

[mAcOdIn]

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.

Aye, I don't have much expectation that the plan will be perfect whenever we do it but I think it's better to lay the foundation now rather than later, it'd be really painful to have to be looking at UHC and a living wage at the same time when automation really starts decimating shit.

What you're talking about is the potential benefits of self employment. That doesn't matter. What I'm saying is people aren't going to do it. It takes a certain type of person to do self employment. A lot of people don't fit that criteria. That's even before factoring in not all jobs are a fit for self employment. Combine those two factors together, and you're not going to get some mass shift of people going self employment simply because of a change in how health care coverage works. There's no reason that's going to be some big tipping point. Those who are capable of self employment are more likely to have already done it for other factors that are much more beneficial to their immediate situation than simply health care. In a perfect world, sure more people would push towards being self employed but that's not what the reality is.

He's not talking about self-employment. He's talking about people who stick with a job that they hate, or that pays them less than they feel it should because they happen to have a medical plan they like or depend on and can't risk losing that plan, or paying ridiculous premiums while in transition to another job with a different plan. There are tons of people who stay somewhere just for them or their spouses health care that otherwise would leave that job if health care wasn't a concern.

And when you're in an industry like that and you know you have people by the balls you don't have to offer better conditions, better time or higher pay. On the flip side, if the health care aspect is removed and health care is no longer a "benefit" that may keep you at one job over another they'd then have to compete with other companies on things like wages, hours or working conditions instead making it a win for employees.

 

[Zoe]

How so? Is that assuming everyone's health care costs thousands of dollars a year, or that most employers on average would pass along savings on their end to the employee?

Because the tax increase is only 2.2% on taxable income ($446 for a $50k household of four).

 

[Russ T]

What you're talking about is the potential benefits of self employment. That doesn't matter. What I'm saying is people aren't going to do it. It takes a certain type of person to do self employment. A lot of people don't fit that criteria. That's even before factoring in not all jobs are a fit for self employment. Combine those two factors together, and you're not going to get some mass shift of people going self employment simply because of a change in how health care coverage works. There's no reason that's going to be some big tipping point. Those who are capable of self employment are more likely to have already done it for other factors that are much more beneficial to their immediate situation than simply health care. In a perfect world, sure more people would push towards being self employed but that's not what the reality is.

I'm not sure how this conversation started, but given Elfforkusu's parenthetical stating that it's not just about self-employment, I'm inclined to agree with them.

Universal health care, that is, not having to worry about being employed to have access to health care, means it's much easier to switch jobs if you think they aren't treating you right. Which includes things like hours, wages, personality clashes, etc. In a world where you don't ever have to worry about keeping a job because of specific benefits, because those benefits are provided by the government, instead... You have a hell of a lot more freedom to choose exactly what you WANt out of a job, rather than what you NEED.

Aye, I don't have much expectation that the plan will be perfect whenever we do it but I think it's better to lay the foundation now rather than later, it'd be really painful to have to be looking at UHC and a living wage at the same time when automation really starts decimating shit.

Yeah, this is something that, if we wait too late, is likely to destroy lives. Starting now, making life a little harder for the people who live now (including me, more than likely!), is such an incredibly small price to pay for the better future.

Thinking along the ideas of only working for yourself is why previous generations made the world better in the immediate moment for themselves... and why our country is in such a terrible state today. Lack of foresight. Lack of empathy for future generations? I don't like to apply malice to intentions, but it's hard not to when so many people today are suffering.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I'm not sure how this conversation started, but given Elfforkusu's parenthetical stating that it's not just about self-employment, I'm inclined to agree with them.

Universal health care, that is, not having to worry about being employed to have access to health care,.

You also have to remember that having insurance does not pay for all of your medical costs. You can still very realistically get hit with thousands of dollars worth of bills that the insurance wont cover.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I think that, in the long run, introducing single-payer healthcare would empower and enrich people, but that qualifier - in the long run - is why it will never, ever get passed in the modern world of instant gratification and constant connection to counternarratives, because any upheaval that big is necessarily going to require upwards of a decade to reach some kind of a desirable equilibrium. Employers aren't going to just put healthcare costs into their employees' paychecks right away, but without the specter of massive healthcare costs hanging over their heads, and with the knowledge that companies aren't paying for healthcare anymore, employees will have increased bargaining power and be more able and willing to leave jobs that aren't using them properly and demand more from prospective employers. It wouldn't happen overnight, but the private sector somehow manages to soak up and capitalize on every big government encroachment claimed to be its death knell, so it's silly to act like single-payer healthcare would be the bridge too far.

Having said that, that'll never happen because too many interests are too entrenched against it, and the squeeze it would put on people in the early stages of its implementation would see them turn on it long before it had a chance to do good. The best bet is for America to expand and revise the ACA into something like Germany's multi-payer system, or to introduce a public option and slowly wean people onto it.

 

[noshten]

Because the tax increase is only 2.2% on taxable income ($446 for a $50k household of four).

So this graph actually includes the portion which would be paid by employers? I call shenanigans on Vox if this is correct. We need an updates graph that only covers increases on taxable income.

 

[Gallbaro]

Vox really fucked up. The report they're citing even says

But Hillary said!

 

[Russ T]

You also have to remember that having insurance does not pay for all of your medical costs. You can still very realistically get hit with thousands of dollars worth of bills that the insurance wont cover.

Well, depends on the insurance. Fairly certain that Sanders' plan means no deductibles, no copays, no nothin'. Private health care would be gone. No more unnecessary price hikes. No more exploiting people. Health care would (well, should) be cheaper on the whole for the people actually doing the paying.

That's how it works in some other countries. Unless I'm wrong?

 

[Future]

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.

This is the key point. Without a mandate that the employers savings go to the employee, it will be hard for anyone to believe their salaries will simply go up. Hell, with those savings an employer may elect to simply hire more people.... Probably good for the economy as a whole but not for each individual person.

To believe that employees will see this money is similar to believing cutting taxes for employers will trickle down to he employee. It puts a lot of weight on corporations doing the right thing when we see time and time again that they don't.

The end result is amazing: affordable healthcare for all. The interim effect on the individual is tough, and without proper incentive will not get people to vote since there is no guarantee that their life will improve. Selfish yeah, but the world is a selfish place

 

[lednerg]

I liked some of Vox's early stuff when they were getting started, but it didn't take long before they jumped the shark with all the contrarian click-bait.

So this graph actually includes the portion which would be paid by employers? I call shenanigans on Vox if this is correct. We need an updates graph that only covers increases on taxable income.

Amazing.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

This is the key point. Without a mandate that the employers savings go to the employee, it will be hard for anyone to believe their salaries will simply go up. Hell, with those savings an employer may elect to simply hire more people.... Probably good for the economy as a whole but not for each individual person.

You are assuming all the employers are going to get together and agree not to give anyone raises.

If one employer pockets the savings (which they have every right to do) then another employer could use those savings to steal employee's away from them (which they have every right to do).

 

[Nivash]

Well, depends on the insurance. Fairly certain that Sanders' plan means no deductibles, no copays, no nothin'. Private health care would be gone. No more unnecessary price hikes. No more exploiting people. Health care would (well, should) be cheaper on the whole for the people actually doing the paying.

That's how it works in some other countries. Unless I'm wrong?

You wouldn't have to pay that much no, but I'd be surprised if he did away with co-pays altogether. Most nations with universal healthcare has some level of co-pay to prevent abuse. For instance, a doctor's visit in Sweden costs $12, a specialist consult costs $24. However, there's also a cost ceiling that means you won't have to pay for more than $120 a year.

Every night spent at a hospital also costs $12 with a cost ceiling of $175 a month.

It's not exactly serious money, it's just there so people at least think if they really need to go to the doctor before they do it. For the same reason, drugs are subsidized instead of free (but also come with a cost ceiling).

 

[Russ T]

You wouldn't have to pay that much no, but I'd be surprised if he did away with co-pays altogether. Most nations with universal healthcare has some level of co-pay to prevent abuse. For instance, a doctor's visit in Sweden costs $12, a specialist consult costs $24. However, there's also a cost ceiling that means you won't have to pay for more than $120 a year.

Every night spent at a hospital also costs $12 with a cost ceiling of $175 a month.

It's not exactly serious money, it's just there so people at least think if they really need to go to the doctor before they do it. For the same reason, drugs are subsidized instead of free (but also come with a cost ceiling).

WHAT IT MEANS FOR PATIENTS

As a patient, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card. Bernie’s plan means no more copays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/

I am not in any way suggesting that, were Bernie to win, his health care plan would go through unopposed and unchanged (if it even went through at all, we all know how unlikely that is), but what he IS proposing does away with all costs to the patient, as far as I know.

That said, I agree with the idea that a cheap copay prevents people from abusing the system, haha. It's a shame it sounds like a good idea, but hey. That's people for ya.

 

[Nivash]

https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/

I am not in any way suggesting that, were Bernie to win, his health care plan would go through unopposed and unchanged (if it even went through at all, we all know how unlikely that is), but what he IS proposing does away with all costs to the patient, as far as I know.

That said, I agree with the idea that a cheap copay prevents people from abusing the system, haha. It's a shame it sounds like a good idea, but hey. That's people for ya.

Huh, didn't know that. I guess "no costs EVAH" makes for a better soundbite than "no costs except for a small co-pay (EVAH)".

 

[ugaboga232]

This is the key point. Without a mandate that the employers savings go to the employee, it will be hard for anyone to believe their salaries will simply go up. Hell, with those savings an employer may elect to simply hire more people.... Probably good for the economy as a whole but not for each individual person.

To believe that employees will see this money is similar to believing cutting taxes for employers will trickle down to he employee. It puts a lot of weight on corporations doing the right thing when we see time and time again that they don't.

The end result is amazing: affordable healthcare for all. The interim effect on the individual is tough, and without proper incentive will not get people to vote since there is no guarantee that their life will improve. Selfish yeah, but the world is a selfish place

It is very different for a few reasons. You even mention that companies will have reduced cost of labor which lowering income or corporate taxes does not do it all and so they will want to hire. With unemployment decently low, they will have to poach employees and pay more. All it takes is one costco/crazy company to slowly raise wage prices.

Tl;dr corporate and income tax reductions do not change the marginal cost of labor whereas large reductions in healthcare expenditures do.

 

[Russ T]

Huh, didn't know that. I guess "no costs EVAH" makes for a better soundbite than "no costs except for a small co-pay (EVAH)".

Hehe, yeah. It's definitely a pipe dream. Pure fantasy. At least, in America...

But, I dunno, I'd rather reach for the sky and get halfway, than not bother trying. I'm not usually one for national pride, but this IS my home. It's where I was born, it's where I grew up, it's where I would prefer to stay (for now). I want it to be better. For everyone, not just for me. That's why I like what Sanders has to say so much. He's the first politician to really speak to what I want for this country, what I want for these people. I see these numbers and I think "Yep, it's worth it." I wish others could see the same thing as me.

Blah.

 

[The Technomancer]

You are assuming all the employers are going to get together and agree not to give anyone raises.

If one employer pockets the savings (which they have every right to do) then another employer could use those savings to steal employee's away from them (which they have every right to do).

That's no different than the current system of "if you want to poach me, you'll need to pay me more", which works if you're highly skilled and in demand but has not really been a significant force for income growth in the last few decades

 

[Mael]

You are assuming all the employers are going to get together and agree not to give anyone raises.

If one employer pockets the savings (which they have every right to do) then another employer could use those savings to steal employee's away from them (which they have every right to do).

It will work the same way as letting insurance company commpete on a national level like Trump is saying that should magically make life better for everyone.

 

[Ekai]

Vox purposefully misreported on this? You don't say.
I mentioned that pages back now.

 

[pgtl_10]

This thread reaffirms that this board is really conservative. I see a lot of conservative points:

1. Not helping others/Selfishness
2. Don't trust government (even though the people of the US are what makes the government)
3. Don't cut military spending
4. America is different! (My most disliked because it's a lazy cop out when you can't explain things are the way they are)

I feel most GAFfers are not liberals just Democrats who only care about winning rather than presenting society with their views.

 

[kinggroin]

An extra 9 grand a year gone from people making 100k a year?

I don't think I like that. 100k a year isn't a ton of money in a household of 4.

Fucking lol



It's crazy how geography affects that

 

[Zoe]

Vox purposefully misreported on this? You don't say.
I mentioned that pages back now.

Guess you need an infograph to get people to read.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

This thread reaffirms that this board is really conservative. I see a lot of conservative points:

1. Not helping others/Selfishness
2. Don't trust government (even though the people of the US are what makes the government)
3. Don't cut military spending
4. America is different! (My most disliked because it's a lazy cop out when you can't explain things are the way they are)

I feel most GAFfers are not liberals just Democrats who only care about winning rather than presenting society with their views.

Guys not being able to afford an increased tax burden due to your personal financial situation is selfish you heard it here first thanks GAF and Obama

 

[Marty Chinn]

You are assuming all the employers are going to get together and agree not to give anyone raises.

If one employer pockets the savings (which they have every right to do) then another employer could use those savings to steal employee's away from them (which they have every right to do).

So what you're saying is those savings will trickle down to the employees?

This thread reaffirms that this board is really conservative. I see a lot of conservative points:

1. Not helping others/Selfishness
2. Don't trust government (even though the people of the US are what makes the government)
3. Don't cut military spending
4. America is different! (My most disliked because it's a lazy cop out when you can't explain things are the way they are)

I feel most GAFfers are not liberals just Democrats who only care about winning rather than presenting society with their views.

No I honestly think people want things like Universal Health Care. They wanted it when someone else was paying for it. They wanted it until they realize they would have to pay for it. They key thing this shows is people were deluded to think it would be free or that they could get away with using other people's money to do it.

He's not talking about self-employment. He's talking about people who stick with a job that they hate, or that pays them less than they feel it should because they happen to have a medical plan they like or depend on and can't risk losing that plan, or paying ridiculous premiums while in transition to another job with a different plan. There are tons of people who stay somewhere just for them or their spouses health care that otherwise would leave that job if health care wasn't a concern.

And when you're in an industry like that and you know you have people by the balls you don't have to offer better conditions, better time or higher pay. On the flip side, if the health care aspect is removed and health care is no longer a "benefit" that may keep you at one job over another they'd then have to compete with other companies on things like wages, hours or working conditions instead making it a win for employees.

The original discussion was about self employment though. With regards to job mobility, I honestly would like to see some numbers to back up the claim that a ton of people have no mobility to another job because they're held back by health care. I believe there are plenty of other factors that limits job mobility but I'm not quite sure I buy that health insurance is the thing holding them back. Most fields I've seen have competitive benefits meaning if you don't like your job, you can find another job in your area of specialty/field and you won't be risking losing benefits because they'll have something comparable. I think basic income is most certainly the thing that's holding back people from having mobility but that's a different topic and discussion all together.

 

[pgtl_10]

Guys not being able to afford an increased tax burden due to your personal financial situation is selfish you heard it here first thanks GAF and Obama

Really? Is that all you got from that?

Also here's a fifth conservative talking point:

5. Social Security is doomed.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

So what you're saying is those savings will trickle down to the employees?


.

No, trickle down economics is a complex scam to increase income inequality.

This is very simple.

1.Governments raises my taxes to pay for universal healthcare
2.My employer no longer has to pay for my healthcare, savings them thousands
3.I will ask for and expect a raise because of this.

This is a very easy process to follow, there's no hard to follow mathematics, there's not thousands of pages of regulations to read through, its very simple.

Also keep in mind, that im on the side of every civilized country on the planet, they agree that Universal Healthcare is the way to go, The USA (where corporations can legally bribe politicians) is the one exception.

 

[Marty Chinn]

No, trickle down economics is a complex scam to increase income inequality.

This is very simple.

1.Governments raises my taxes to pay for universal healthcare
2.My employer no longer has to pay for my healthcare, savings them thousands
3.I will ask for and expect a raise because of this.

This is a very easy process to follow, there's no hard to follow mathematics, there's not thousands of pages of regulations to read through, its very simple.

Also keep in mind, that im on the side of every civilized country on the planet, they agree that Universal Healthcare is the way to go, The USA (where corporations can legally bribe politicians) is the one exception.

Would you ask for a raise if you opted out of your company's health benefits? I bet you don't even know how much they're paying for that benefit. Companies now mostly don't compensate you for opting out.

The problem is most won't ask, so companies won't do it. It really is a form of trickle down economics if you expect companies to pass on the savings to you.

 

[Keri]

No I honestly think people want things like Universal Health Care. They wanted it when someone else was paying for it. They wanted it until they realize they would have to pay for it. They key thing this shows is people were deluded to think it would be free or that they could get away with using other people's money to do it.

I think part of the problem too, is that a lot of people have acknowledged recently that the middle class is suffering in the U.S. (due to stagnant wages, rising housing costs and student loan debt). Income disparity is growing and I think there was an expectation that Sanders' plan would help rescue the middle class, but the plan is to raise taxes on this group as well. Possibly significantly.

Also, even with some of the clarification offered in this thread, it still sounds like the hope is that the majority of the taxes will be paid by employers, who will simply accept the higher taxes as being fair, due to the savings on health coverage and then not substantially change the terms of employment (or, best case, raise wages). I'm not sure how realistic that is. The majority are not in a position where they can risk losing their jobs and are not in a position to negotiate higher wages. In contrast, Clinton is proposing only modest adjustments to taxes for the middle class and asserting she'll continue to protect and expand Obamacare. That just sounds safer, more reasonable and much more realistic to me.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

No, trickle down economics is a complex scam to increase income inequality.

This is very simple.

1.Governments raises my taxes to pay for universal healthcare
2.My employer no longer has to pay for my healthcare, savings them thousands
3.I will ask for and expect a raise because of this.

This is a very easy process to follow, there's no hard to follow mathematics, there's not thousands of pages of regulations to read through, its very simple.

Also keep in mind, that im on the side of every civilized country on the planet, they agree that Universal Healthcare is the way to go, The USA (where corporations can legally bribe politicians) is the one exception.

And thats the problem, people asked for and expected a raise after the round of tax cuts that came from trickle down economics and got nothing. It would be foolish to expect something this time without a government mandate.

Also the solution of just up and going to another job is not feasible for may Americans. We cant just uproot our family to move to another part of the country if we are getting jerked in our area. Maybe for the young and unattached that works but not for older people who are more rooted to their area.

 

[kinggroin]

Oof



This really comes down to whether or not the average American (in a capitalist society that encourages a shoot for the moon, i got mine, go get yours attitude) will actually be game for this...uh, I guess, balancing act?


My wife and I are talking now, and we'd have zero need for the educational benefits, and at 60k a year in a household of 5 (and my insurance is covered completely by my job so i don't expect that money being given back), we have to ask if the extra 4k a year worth hooking up everyone else.

Introspection needed here.

 

[noshten]

I've updated the OP to be a bit more balanced, since it does appear the Vox article is misleading especially with that chart.

 

[theshizzle]

Oof



This really comes down to whether or not the average American (in a capitalist society that encourages a shoot for the moon, i got mine, go get yours attitude) will actually be game for this...uh, I guess, balancing act?


My wife and I are talking now, and we'd have zero need for the educational benefits, and at 60k a year in a household of 5 (and my insurance is covered completely by my job so i don't expect that money being given back), we have to ask if the extra 4k a year worth hooking up everyone else.

Introspection needed here.

What's the cost of not paying that 4k? You get an uneducated general population who votes... for people like Trump, a man who believes it is righteous to murder the families of criminals as retaliation. The larger the intellectual gap between individuals of a society, the less desirable it is to live in such a society. I don't know about you, but I want to live in a world with smart people.

Imagine all the good some extra tax dollars could provide for everyone. A more educated populace means better engineers to create that new tech gadget that will improve everyone's quality of life. It will mean more doctors, nurses, and pharmacists to treat and cure the most stubborn diseases and illnesses. Imagine a world with more scientists to research new materials for better clothing, homes, and cars. You may not think you benefit, but you do. The tax increases that Bernie is proposing is such a small price to pay for the advancement of an entire human civilization

 

[bounchfx]

Oof



This really comes down to whether or not the average American (in a capitalist society that encourages a shoot for the moon, i got mine, go get yours attitude) will actually be game for this...uh, I guess, balancing act?


My wife and I are talking now, and we'd have zero need for the educational benefits, and at 60k a year in a household of 5 (and my insurance is covered completely by my job so i don't expect that money being given back), we have to ask if the extra 4k a year worth hooking up everyone else.

Introspection needed here.

yeah it's a decision a lot of people will have to make. Personally I am more than willing to spend or save a bit less if it means better quality of life, it's more than worth it imo. I can see a lot of people not wanting to because of what it might potentially cost, but I think it's worth understanding the benefits overall, not just at face value.

but who fucking knows since everyone is saying how its great and how it's shit and I can't figure out who's full of it or not. I just see how broken and fucked out current system is and would rather opt to try something vs nothing :\

edit: post above me sums it up nicely. It equates to far more than what people realize.

 

[PlatypusDude]

Really? Is that all you got from that?

Also here's a fifth conservative talking point:

5. Social Security is doomed.

Social security having forced cuts to benefits around 2035 if something is not done is public knowledge and known by the Social Security Administration and that info is released by them.

 

[kinggroin]

yeah it's a decision a lot of people will have to make. Personally I am more than willing to spend or save a bit less if it means better quality of life, it's more than worth it imo. I can see a lot of people not wanting to because of what it might potentially cost, but I think it's worth understanding the benefits overall, not just at face value.

but who fucking knows since everyone is saying how its great and how it's shit and I can't figure out who's full of it or not. I just see how broken and fucked out current system is and would rather opt to try something vs nothing :

edit: post above me sums it up nicely. It equates to far more than what people realize.

What's the cost of not paying that 4k? You get an uneducated general population who votes... for people like Trump, a man who believes it is righteous to murder the families of criminals as retaliation. The larger the intellectual gap between individuals of a society, the less desirable it is to live in such a society. I don't know about you, but I want to live in a world with smart people.

Imagine all the good some extra tax dollars could provide for everyone. A more educated populace means better engineers to create that new tech gadget that will improve everyone's quality of life. It will mean more doctors, nurses, and pharmacists to treat and cure the most stubborn diseases and illnesses. Imagine a world with more scientists to research new materials for better clothing, homes, and cars. You may not think you benefit, but you do. The tax increases that Bernie is proposing is such a small price to pay for the advancement of an entire human civilization

All of that is taken into account in our conversation. Trust me. I didn't say I won't benefit, but rather how much sacrifice we are comfortable making to get everyone else there (so that we EVENTUALLY benefit).


Also, do you believe in levels of humanity? As in, levels where you get change from human and civilized to animalistic and survivalist? I think each person draws the lines between those levels differently.

This tax plan takes that away and draws it for you. I bet that's more the reason people have a knee-jerk reaction of "fuck that".

Thank you both btw for not being assholes in responding. This is a sensitive subject.

 

[Keri]

My wife and I are talking now, and we'd have zero need for the educational benefits, and at 60k a year in a household of 5 (and my insurance is covered completely by my job so i don't expect that money being given back), we have to ask if the extra 4k a year worth hooking up everyone else.

I posted this a few pages ago, but my husband and I are in the exact same situation. Our employer already completely covers the cost of our insurance and I don't think either of us would get a raise, after this plan is implemented. Even assuming the increased taxes on our employer end up being less than the amount saved in providing health insurance, I think its much more likely they'd hire new employees (instead of increasing wages for those they already have). So, it's extremely unlikely we would benefit from this plan. Also, we have a baby on the way and we're not exactly rolling in money, so it's not a great time for us to plan to lose more going forward.

What's the cost of not paying that 4k? You get an uneducated general population who votes...

I don't think this tax increase covers free college tuition.

 

[kinggroin]

I posted this a few pages ago, but my husband and I are in the exact same situation. Our employer already completely covers the cost of our insurance and I don't think either of us would get a raise, after this plan is implemented. Even assuming the increased taxes on our employer end up being less than the amount saved in providing health insurance, I think its much more likely they'd hire new employees (instead of increasing wages for those they already have). So, it's extremely unlikely we would benefit from this plan. Also, we have a baby on the way and we're not exactly rolling in money, so it's not a great time for us to plan to lose more going forward.



I don't think this tax increase covers free college tuition.

Even if it did, people I speak with regarding this just don't like the idea of someone saying what is or isn't a fair amount to lose from what they make, in order to benefit others. Or be dictated to regarding financial comfort.

It should be as easy as, "we all benefit as a race", but man...it really doesn't seem that way.

 

[Kickz]

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.

Ah there it is, thanks.

They should come up with some kind of wealth tax then, since its unfair we carry the bulk of the tax burden on a technicality...

 

[Spinluck]

Maybe medicine is a scam, and college is overpriced as fuck.

 

[theshizzle]

Also, do you believe in levels of humanity? As in, levels where you get change from human and civilized to animalistic and survivalist? I think each person draws the lines between those levels differently.

This tax plan takes that away and draws it for you. I bet that's more the reason people have a knee-jerk reaction of "fuck that".

I just think that if we don't do something soon, people are going to be pushed toward animalistic and survivalist whether they like it or not.
I get that people don't like to be taxed, but it doesn't seem like they're looking at the entire picture. Sure, an individual might be able to save a couple thousand now and enjoy the immediate benefits; they'll be able to buy that new fancy item they've always wanted, but what about further down the line? This tax is an investment for the future.

I'm not trying to be patronizing when I say this, but every kid doesn't want to go to school, doesn't want to brush his/her teeth, doesn't want to not put that object from the floor into his/her mouth, but as an adult, that kid will understand and appreciate the benefits of being able to read/write, of having healthy teeth and gums, and not having a parasite in his/her intestines. If we sacrifice the long term for the short term, we might regret what we become.

I don't think this tax increase covers free college tuition.

The revenue from a tax is considered part of a large pool. It would contribute to Bernie's proposed free public college tuition.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Why the businesses have more money - they no longer have to pay for healthcare for their employees, automation has increased revenues whilst decreasing labour costs etc - is basically an irrelevance. If we acknowledge that for the best part of the last 40 years business profits have risen whilst wages have remained largely stagnant, one simply must acknowledge that the bargaining chip of threatening to leave is simply not enough for the vast majority of people. Otherwise you would expect there to be a pretty significant correlation between corporate profit and employee wages, albeit with something of a lag. As such, it's hard to imagine that this benefit being relocated from the employer's to the government's resonsibility - which will, off the bat, decrease the costs to the business - will get transferred to the employees. The various other profit-gaining changes of the last 40 didn't result in that.

That's to say nothing of the fact that, as many others have pointed out, people don't currently get "rebates" from their employer if they opt out of their healthcare provisions (because their spouse gets a better/cheaper family plan, for example). The short question that needs to be answered is: What threat can the employees issue to get better pay after this plan is enacted that they couldn't have issued over the last 40 years? and if there answer is "there isn't", why do you believe it'll be more effective now?

The only answer I can think of is that the cost of healthcare being prohibitive means that losing your job means losing healthcare and therefore people are unwilling to threaten to quit in case their bluff is called - but this trend of wages remaining stagnant whilst profits rise is seen across the developed world, including those which have universal healthcare.

 

[Zoe]

Also, even with some of the clarification offered in this thread, it still sounds like the hope is that the majority of the taxes will be paid by employers, who will simply accept the higher taxes as being fair, due to the savings on health coverage and then not substantially change the terms of employment (or, best case, raise wages). I'm not sure how realistic that is.

Well good thing it's up to the voters, right? Employer taxes are mandatory.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Ah there it is, thanks.

They should come up with some kind of wealth tax then, since its unfair we carry the bulk of the tax burden on a technicality...

Wealth taxes are very tricky though, because wealth is flexible and illiquid. Last June the Chinese stock market lost $1.5 trillion in 3 weeks (that's more than the entire annual GDP of Mexico). So various share holders in China and elsewhere lost that much wealth. But that didn't really lose any actual thing. If you owned 20% of the shares in FoxyPhone and they were worth $300bn, then the market crashed and they tumbled in value to $100bn, you just lost $200bn - yet you still own 20% of FoxyPhone. The amount of the business you own is still the same. The business hasn't even changed, just other people's valuation of it. And that's the thing that's a bit difficult to grasp sometimes about wealth - wealth isn't money, it's simply other peoples' valuation of the worth of what you own. You buy a house in Ireland for 400,000 euros in 2006 and now it's worth 120,000 euros, but the house is the same. The only thing that changed is how much other people are willing to pay for it.

But imagine this scenario (and this happened to literally millions of people across Ireland, Spain, Greece etc after the creation of the Euro all the way up to today) - you buy a house for 100,000 euros. It rises and rises and rises in value as the property market inflates and before you know it that house on the edge of Dublin or by the sea in Estepona is worth 500,000 euros. Jubilation! But, well, it's your house and you live there, so as nice as it is that the value's gone up, it doesn't actually do you any good because you don't have that money - you just have the same house that used to be worth 100,000. Now what's happened? There's a world recession, banks stop lending which mean people stop buying houses which means that suddenly the over-saturated housing market shits the bed - no one wants to buy your house for 200,000 euros, much less than 500,000 euros it was worth just before the recession! Now the house is back down to 100,000 again. So during all this time, the owner's net worth ballooned to about three quarters of a million dollars, and has now crashed back down to just over $110,000 - yet the person didn't do anything, didn't get any benefit from this rise, didn't get a better house and didn't gain in any way.

This is a fairly relatable story about housing, but the same theory applies to investing in businesses, physical objects (artwork, classic cars etc). This is why wealth taxes are tricky - at what point would it have been reasonable to ask that Irish/Spanish/Greek house owner to pay the government money, even though they weren't benefiting? And would they have got that money back when the property lost its value again? (Businesses can do this by offsetting profits and losses, since a year is basically an arbitrary period of time over which to calculate taxes). This is why we tend to tax capital gains (the difference between what you buy something for and then what you sell something for) and dividend (payments from a business you own a part of) - because that's when the money actually becomes tangible to you.

All of this is also why looking at the wealth of the 1% is, whilst interesting, not as illuminating and useful as the massive graphs showing the disparity make it seem.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Wealth taxes are very tricky though, because wealth is flexible and illiquid. Last June the Chinese stock market lost $1.5 trillion in 3 weeks (that's more than the entire annual GDP of Mexico). So various share holders in China and elsewhere lost that much wealth. But that didn't really lose any actual thing. If you owned 20% of the shares in FoxyPhone and they were worth $300bn, then the market crashed and they tumbled in value to $100bn, you just lost $200bn - yet you still own 20% of FoxyPhone. The amount of the business you own is still the same. The business hasn't even changed, just other people's valuation of it. And that's the thing that's a bit difficult to grasp sometimes about wealth - wealth isn't money, it's simply other peoples' valuation of the worth of what you own. You buy a house in Ireland for 400,000 euros in 2006 and now it's worth 120,000 euros, but the house is the same. The only thing that changed is how much other people are willing to pay for it.

But imagine this scenario (and this happened to literally millions of people across Ireland, Spain, Greece etc after the creation of the Euro all the way up to today) - you buy a house for 100,000 euros. It rises and rises and rises in value as the property market inflates and before you know it that house on the edge of Dublin or by the sea in Estepona is worth 500,000 euros. Jubilation! But, well, it's your house and you live there, so as nice as it is that the value's gone up, it doesn't actually do you any good because you don't have that money - you just have the same house that used to be worth 100,000. Now what's happened? There's a world recession, banks stop lending which mean people stop buying houses which means that suddenly the over-saturated housing market shits the bed - no one wants to buy your house for 200,000 euros, much less than 500,000 euros it was worth just before the recession! Now the house is back down to 100,000 again. So during all this time, the owner's net worth ballooned to about three quarters of a million dollars, and has now crashed back down to just over $110,000 - yet the person didn't do anything, didn't get any benefit from this rise, didn't get a better house and didn't gain in any way.

This is a fairly relatable story about housing, but the same theory applies to investing in businesses, physical objects (artwork, classic cars etc). This is why wealth taxes are tricky - at what point would it have been reasonable to ask that Irish/Spanish/Greek house owner to pay the government money, even though they weren't benefiting? And would they have got that money back when the property lost its value again? (Businesses can do this by offsetting profits and losses, since a year is basically an arbitrary period of time over which to calculate taxes). This is why we tend to tax capital gains (the difference between what you buy something for and then what you sell something for) and dividend (payments from a business you own a part of) - because that's when the money actually becomes tangible to you.

All of this is also why looking at the wealth of the 1% is, whilst interesting, not as illuminating and useful as the massive graphs showing the disparity make it seem.

Excellent post.

 

[lastflowers]

Wealth taxes are very tricky though, because wealth is flexible and illiquid. Last June the Chinese stock market lost $1.5 trillion in 3 weeks (that's more than the entire annual GDP of Mexico). So various share holders in China and elsewhere lost that much wealth. But that didn't really lose any actual thing. If you owned 20% of the shares in FoxyPhone and they were worth $300bn, then the market crashed and they tumbled in value to $100bn, you just lost $200bn - yet you still own 20% of FoxyPhone. The amount of the business you own is still the same. The business hasn't even changed, just other people's valuation of it. And that's the thing that's a bit difficult to grasp sometimes about wealth - wealth isn't money, it's simply other peoples' valuation of the worth of what you own. You buy a house in Ireland for 400,000 euros in 2006 and now it's worth 120,000 euros, but the house is the same. The only thing that changed is how much other people are willing to pay for it.

But imagine this scenario (and this happened to literally millions of people across Ireland, Spain, Greece etc after the creation of the Euro all the way up to today) - you buy a house for 100,000 euros. It rises and rises and rises in value as the property market inflates and before you know it that house on the edge of Dublin or by the sea in Estepona is worth 500,000 euros. Jubilation! But, well, it's your house and you live there, so as nice as it is that the value's gone up, it doesn't actually do you any good because you don't have that money - you just have the same house that used to be worth 100,000. Now what's happened? There's a world recession, banks stop lending which mean people stop buying houses which means that suddenly the over-saturated housing market shits the bed - no one wants to buy your house for 200,000 euros, much less than 500,000 euros it was worth just before the recession! Now the house is back down to 100,000 again. So during all this time, the owner's net worth ballooned to about three quarters of a million dollars, and has now crashed back down to just over $110,000 - yet the person didn't do anything, didn't get any benefit from this rise, didn't get a better house and didn't gain in any way.

This is a fairly relatable story about housing, but the same theory applies to investing in businesses, physical objects (artwork, classic cars etc). This is why wealth taxes are tricky - at what point would it have been reasonable to ask that Irish/Spanish/Greek house owner to pay the government money, even though they weren't benefiting? And would they have got that money back when the property lost its value again? (Businesses can do this by offsetting profits and losses, since a year is basically an arbitrary period of time over which to calculate taxes). This is why we tend to tax capital gains (the difference between what you buy something for and then what you sell something for) and dividend (payments from a business you own a part of) - because that's when the money actually becomes tangible to you.

All of this is also why looking at the wealth of the 1% is, whilst interesting, not as illuminating and useful as the massive graphs showing the disparity make it seem.

To go along with this, the estate tax has been described frequently to combat this accumulation of wealth (this was constantly brought up in reference to that Piketty book): http://www.cbpp.org/research/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax

Interesting bit:

5. The Largest Estates Consist Mostly of “Unrealized” Capital Gains That Have Never Been Taxed

FIGURE 3
1-8-15tax_rev3-23-15-f3.png
Much of the money that wealthy heirs inherit would never face any taxation were it not for the estate tax. In fact, that’s one reason why policymakers created the estate tax in 1916: to serve as a backstop to the income tax, taxing the income of wealthy taxpayers that would otherwise go completely untaxed.

Under the current tax system, capital gains tax is due on the appreciation of assets, such as real estate, stock, or an art collection, only when the owner “realizes” the gain (usually by selling the asset). Therefore, the increase in the value of an asset is never subject to income tax if the owner holds on to the asset until death.[13]

These unrealized capital gains account for a significant proportion of the assets held by estates — ranging from 32 percent for estates worth between $5 million and $10 million to as much as about 55 percent of the value of estates worth more than $100 million. (See Figure 3.)[14]

The estate tax also serves as a modest corrective to other tax rules that provide massive tax benefits to income from wealth, such as the fact that capital gains are taxed at lower rates than wages and salaries. The top 0.1 percent of taxpayers — those with incomes above $3.2 million — will receive more than 50 percent of the benefit of the preferential capital gains rates in 2015, worth about $500,000 apiece.[15] Other tax rules allow part of the income of the very wealthiest to go completely untaxed, even with the estate tax.[16]

Since the estate tax serves, in part, to tax capital gains that have not otherwise been taxed, some people have proposed taxing estates at the top capital gains rate, currently 23.8 percent. This argument is flawed: the capital gains tax rates typically apply to nearly all capital gains income, whereas the estate tax applies only to the part of an estate that exceeds the exemption level. The estate tax’s average effective rate of 16.6 percent in 2013 was below the capital gains rate.)

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Really? Is that all you got from that?

Also here's a fifth conservative talking point:

5. Social Security is doomed.

I haven't seen you refute my post. Because while it's obvious to any intelligent individual that you and many of the other holier than thou condescending posters in this thread have no idea that all 300 million people in the US have wildly different financial situations and there is a non-trivial percentage of those who live paycheck to paycheck and have no spare money at all, it's clearly not obvious to some. So keep preaching to the choir, everyone else is too busy working for a living.

 

[pwack]

I haven't paid close enough attention to Sanders' college plan. Is the general idea that college is 1) too expensive and 2) not worthwhile for everyone, so we are just gonna spread the cost across the whole population without improving the quality of the education / fixing point 2?

Not everyone needs to go to college.

 

[basic_element]

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.

You're doing pretty damn good if you're in the 15k tax bracket ( between 111k and 178k per year) and only have a $1250 per month mortgage.