Support NeoGAF

[gutter_trash]

The suggested tax increase is considerably smaller than what companies are currently paying for health insurance.

Exactly.
It relieves the burden from employers off private health insurance.

 

[DR2K]

Altruism is not easy in a self centered society.

 

[br0ken_shad0w]

Sanders's tax increases come with healthcare built-in, right? So you wouldn't be paying separate health insurance anymore. For many people that alone could make up the difference.

Sadly those many people won't see that. Take the replies in this topic for instance, and GAF isn't your average American either.

 

[Soroc]

This would be devastating to anyone in places like San Francisco or New York City, where the general cost of living is incredibly high. After all my other essential expenses (rent, food, transit, etc), paying this new income tax might put my bank account in the red.

I like where I live; I don't want to be forced to leave. :-(

Check to see what you and your employer are paying in healthcare premiums. Add that up and subtract from the tax increase, do you have a net gain?

 

[mnannola]

Would this plan save companies money that pay for their employees health care premiums? If my company is paying $15,000 toward my health care premiums, and under this plan they would pay zero, will they see any savings? Or do the tax increases offset this for businesses?

 

[Flo_Evans]

I'm actually surprised that more businesses aren't pro-government run health care. It would be a huge financial burden off of their shoulders. Right now, my company pays what amounts to a 15-20% tax on my income to pay for my medical insurance. Under Sanders' plan, that would drop to a 6.5% income tax.

Wait, their calculations assume employers would pass along the 6.5% income tax increase, but none of the savings from dropping their health care plans?

The reason is simple, employer provided health care decreases job mobility.

 

[noshten]

Theoretically, the employer would pass the savings onto you.

("theoretically")

What I'm wondering is if the medical taxes would still decrease your overall tax liability.

Thanks for the info, I will enter it in the OP - so people get the full picture.

 

[Drek]

For that to happen, tax hikes are inevitable. But consider this, you would be getting both free(ish) healthcare and college!

Now imagine an establishment candidate in office being forced to make the same healthcare reform, who do you think they are going to tax more the top 20% or mid-low class?

The sitting POTUS wanted a single payer option that would have largely been funded on taxes applied to the top 20%, corporate taxes, high end medical equipment, etc.. The only reason it didn't happen was a few contrarian democrats throwing a fit about it.

Kind of like what Sanders' entire legislative history is comprised of. Maybe if he didn't spend all his time in D.C. shitting on everyone else for not being pure liberals he could have actually sold some people on single payer seven years ago when it could have actually happened. Sanders can't dirty his hands with establishment things like compromise and pragmatism though, so we'll just wait for the "revolution" to solve it. Just like how it'll win him the Democratic Primary.

 

[ugaboga232]

The sitting POTUS wanted a single payer option that would have largely been funded on taxes applied to the top 20%, corporate taxes, high end medical equipment, etc.. The only reason it didn't happen was a few contrarian democrats throwing a fit about it.

Kind of like what Sanders' entire legislative history is comprised of. Maybe if he didn't spend all his time in D.C. shitting on everyone else for not being pure liberals he could have actually sold some people on single payer seven years ago when it could have actually happened. Sanders can't dirty his hands with establishment things like compromise and pragmatism though, so we'll just wait for the "revolution" to solve it. Just like how it'll win him the Democratic Primary.

What do these two paragraphs have anything to do with each other?

 

[LegendofJoe]

Sadly those many people won't see that. Take the replies in this topic for instance, and GAF isn't your average American either.

The vox chart doesn't account for the cost of current health care coverage being subtracted from your increase in tax burden. If this chart wasn't so misleading we'd be having an entirely different discussion.

 

[fantomena]

Are nordic countries and some EU countries the only countries who don't have any problem paying high taxes?

 

[jmdajr]

Are nordic countries and some EU countries the only countries who don't have any problem paying high taxes?

Did all those high taxes help fuel all that awesome Scandinavian metal?

 

[God Dayumm]

The suggested tax increase is considerably smaller than what companies are currently paying for health insurance.

Under Sander's plan my tax increase alone is almost as much as what my employer and me contribute towards insurance combined. I would be absorbing that whole cost, and my employer will also have their own tax hike.

 

[Drek]

If you use this logic, why don't they just pay us 1$? Their burden per employee is going down, and if they have no interest in increasing wages, why do they even pay much in the first place? Answer this, and you get your answer (if you are gonna factor in pass through on one factor, it isn't very logically consistent to say they won't pass through the other).

Employers pay exactly what is required to get competent staff for their needs. How exactly do you think the bargaining structure between employer and employee is going to change when they don't need to pay for healthcare? Maybe, ultimately, the employer has more free capital to entice employees with but initially everyone is already going to be locked in at their current pay levels and employers aren't going to just go around handing out raises.

You would likely see a period of similar wage growth to what we currently have, then several years later as companies re-assess their HR spending a modest rise in wage growth relative to the current trend which would then be followed by a leveling off back to the norm.

So employees would have to get by until the increased wage offers came through, be ready to capitalize on that opportunity (i.e. change jobs), and then see the extra benefits from this.

If you really think this will allow people to sit down with their employer and say "hey, you're paying $4000.00 less to employ me because of the universal healthcare law and my taxes got raised as a result, you need to pay me more!" you're dreaming. The response is going to be "well our taxes went up too and you're imminently replaceable. Make your own choices."

What do these two paragraphs have anything to do with each other?

The fact that 1. single payer has been on the table before 2. it wasn't built around a substantial middle class tax increase and 3. Sanders was worthless in getting it passed then, just like he'd be worthless as POTUS getting it passed in 2016.

 

[ugaboga232]

Did all those high taxes help fuel all that awesome Scandinavian metal?

You joke but a strong safety net/healthcare/etc. means you can do riskier ventures like create a band.

 

[fantomena]

Did all those high taxes help fuel all that awesome Scandinavian metal?

Yup. Took some time, but we finally got it going.

 

[Newt]

Canadian here, some of the comments in this thread seem really short sighted to me. Paying 5k a year for free health care is not a heavy cost to pay.

 

[JustenP88]

The ghost of Reagan haunts this thread.

 

[DragonSworne]

Theoretically, the employer would pass the savings onto you.

("theoretically")

What I'm wondering is if the medical taxes would still decrease your overall tax liability.

I wonder how much of the high cost is due to expensive drugs, medical equipment, hospitals, and general fraud.

 

[jmdajr]

You joke but a strong safety net/healthcare/etc. means you can do riskier ventures like create a band.

It was a partial serious question! lol. In fact, I think I read that in some ways it did help.

 

[SeanR1221]

Check to see what you and your employer are paying in healthcare premiums. Add that up and subtract from the tax increase, do you have a net gain?

Just did. Nope.

No thank you on Bernie after this.

 

[excelsiorlef]

So can anyone answer my question? What comes first the new health care system and free college or the tax change?

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

I don't want universal healthcare enough to lose 15 grand out of my bank account a year. No thanks Bernie.

 

[MattGalvatron]

The math and logic in some of these posts...wow. I think some people need to re-read that Vox article a bit closer.

 

[The Technomancer]

I wonder how much of the high cost is due to expensive drugs, medical equipment, hospitals, and general fraud.

A huge amount of it. But it will go down slowly as the market adjusts. The costs of procedures and medicines just cannot go down by 70% in three years

 

[ugaboga232]

Employers pay exactly what is required to get competent staff for their needs. How exactly do you think the bargaining structure between employer and employee is going to change when they don't need to pay for healthcare? Maybe, ultimately, the employer has more free capital to entice employees with but initially everyone is already going to be locked in at their current pay levels and employers aren't going to just go around handing out raises.

You would likely see a period of similar wage growth to what we currently have, then several years later as companies re-assess their HR spending a modest rise in wage growth relative to the current trend which would then be followed by a leveling off back to the norm.

So employees would have to get by until the increased wage offers came through, be ready to capitalize on that opportunity (i.e. change jobs), and then see the extra benefits from this.

If you really think this will allow people to sit down with their employer and say "hey, you're paying $4000.00 less to employ me because of the universal healthcare law and my taxes got raised as a result, you need to pay me more!" you're dreaming. The response is going to be "well our taxes went up too and you're imminently replaceable. Make your own choices."

So now you fired your employee or coerced some into staying, what is the end game? Is there gonna be economy wide collaboration on hoarding these savings and not letting even start ups use all this freed up money to entice people? This seems even more naive than the sanders people you are harping on about the evil 1%. Very very very few people are pure evil or pure greed.

A huge amount of it. But it will go down slowly as the market adjusts. The costs of procedures and medicines just cannot go down by 70% in three years

50% has been quoted as waste (just using too much healthcare when its not needed or stuff like that), fraud is another big basket, drugs are a decent way to save, etc. There is a lot of savings possible and most of it is just more efficient allocation of procedures and not necessarily even reducing their pricing very much.

 

[Crimson_Gold]

I'd be taking a loss but so be it. I expect eternal gratitude from all of you. I'll accept skittles and other forms of delicious candy as tribute

 

[Angry Grimace]

I bet we could save way more money just not requiring people to get college degrees to do essentially unskilled labor, but that would make all of the college lose money and we can't have that!

 

[TheLaughingStock]

This seems a bit... extreme.

Is there something I'm not seeing here? Because the tax plan seems to be hitting lower income people pretty hard too.

It seems extreme because Sanders' team is trying to achieve a surplus seemingly over the course of the forecast/projection. So, he's going to hit people hard to hit the number they settled on regardless of the implications of what the projected revenue/spending targets are.

 

[AlexMogil]

I would lose my house.

 

[FriedConsole]

Canadian here, some of the comments in this thread seem really short sighted to me. Paying 5k a year for free health care is not a heavy cost to pay.

Umm. That isn't free then. I am not paying near 5k a year now for healthcare. So how is this better for me?

 

[Arkeband]

Vox sure is after Bernie's nuts lately.

 

[LegendofJoe]

I don't want universal healthcare enough to lose 15 grand out of my bank account a year. No thanks Bernie.

You pay at least a third of that if not more to cover health insurance now. Your increase in net terms would be more like 5 to 10k.

 

[Nuu]

Sanders tax plan seems more than reasonable for my income. I'd gladly fork over the extra four digits for his plans. Hell I'm already halfway there thanks to the extra I now have to pay after Obamacare got implemented.

 

[hawk2025]

So can anyone answer my question? What comes first the new health care system and free college or the tax change?

I'm wondering on what the plan for the timing is myself, both for Health Care and Education.

I'm genuinely asking, by the way, and trying to find the information on his website.

 

[DragonSworne]

A huge amount of it. But it will go down slowly as the market adjusts. The costs of procedures and medicines just cannot go down by 70% in three years

But didn't they go up that much during the Bush era? Just checked, it went up 53% during George W Bush's time in office.

 

[Tesseract]

I'd be taking a loss but so be it. I expect eternal gratitude from all of you. I'll accept skittles and other forms of delicious candy as tribute

You won't be able to afford skittles after Bernie is done with you.

 

[ugaboga232]

Vox sure is after Bernie's nuts lately.

They have been for a while, their old marginal tax graph was misleading, their Thorpe healthcare analysis is very misleading and poorly founded, and this is also misleading.

I'm wondering on what the plan for the timing is myself, both for Health Care and Education.

I'm genuinely asking, by the way, and trying to find the information on his website.

Congress has to create the bill, not bernie. They aren't gonna just massively raise taxes while diddling their thumbs. Bernie may be a crazy old man but hes not that crazy nor can he magically control congress (which is what people yell at him for already).

 

[collige]

Umm. That isn't free then. I am not paying near 5k a year now for healthcare. So how is this better for me?

Your new plan won't have to deal with co-pay fuckery, deductible fuckery, HSA fuckery or any other general insurance fuckery.

 

[Crimson_Gold]

You won't be able to afford skittles after Bernie is done with you.

Then Bernie is done. Smh. He had one job...

 

[FriedConsole]

Your new plan won't have to deal with co-pay fuckery, deductible fuckery, HSA fuckery or any other general insurance fuckery.

Yeah adding all that up it isn't near 5k.

 

[teh_pwn]

Yeah, no thanks. That increase on us with TX property taxes means like 45% lost to taxes each year. And for what - drones?

No idea wtf Pflugerville is doing with all that tax money. Someone's getting rich. At least it's not Austin with hundreds of millions spent on unnecessarily long sidewalk construction.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I'm wondering on what the plan for the timing is myself, both for Health Care and Education.

I'm genuinely asking, by the way, and trying to find the information on his website.

Because if it's simultaneous and tied to gather it might work.

If it's tax first changes later.... well good luck getting those changes through.

I'd just be concerned you'd end up with the raise in taxes on the lower brackets without the new health care or college systems

 

[MattGalvatron]

If you like Sanders or not or think these taxes are too high, it doesn't matter. We do need to move toward medicare for all, we pay the most.


http://www.economonitor.com/dolanecon/2016/03/04/sanders-is-right-the-us-needs-a-healthcare-system-more-like-those-in-europe/

 

[ugaboga232]

Yeah adding all that up it isn't near 5k.

Then your employer is paying a crap ton for that nice of a plan.

Because if it's simultaneous and tied to gather it might work.

If it's tax first changes later.... well good luck getting those changes through.

I'd just be concerned you'd end up with the raise in taxes on the lower brackets without the new health care or college systems

Do you really think its not going to be simultaneous? That would a huge failure on congress's part, not sanders.

 

[Lumination]

Even gaf becomes conservative when it comes to THEIR taxes.

 

[JustenP88]

So can anyone answer my question? What comes first the new health care system and free college or the tax change?

The tax change is a condition of the Medicare for all plan. It's part of it.

I believe the college plan going into effect is contingent upon the approval of his proposed banking taxes.

 

[Tesseract]

Even gaf becomes conservative when it comes to THEIR taxes.

Lol

 

[geomon]

Sounds good to me. Those tax hikes are going to go a long way further than any tax cut.

 

[hawk2025]

They have been for a while, their old marginal tax graph was misleading, their Thorpe healthcare analysis is very misleading and poorly founded, and this is also misleading.



Congress has to create the bill, not bernie. They aren't gonna just massively raise taxes while diddling their thumbs. Bernie may be a crazy old man but hes not that crazy nor can he magically control congress (which is what people yell at him for already).

Of course, but his platform is to outline a goal for the country.

I'm not asking for the political plan, just the applied one. Assuming full and unbridled cooperation of Congress -- How do we go about this?

Because if it's simultaneous and tied to gather it might work.

If it's tax first changes later.... well good luck getting those changes through.

I'd just be concerned you'd end up with the raise in taxes on the lower brackets without the new health care or college systems

Precisely why since page 1 my main concern is with a potential tax hike on the lower brackets. The supply side will surely take a while to adjust, especially wrt education.

I could be wrong though, I'm genuinely and truly open to a discussion on this.