Support NeoGAF

[JeTmAn81]

A $4,500 tax increase on the middle class? Sanders is out of his mind. Go be president of Norway, please.

 

[besada]

Even gaf becomes conservative when it comes to THEIR taxes.

First of all, GAF is comprised of a lot of different voices, which you might have noticed by reading this thread full of people disagreeing.

That said, we do have a considerable number of posters who aren't so much real progressives as they are social liberals. They like to call themselves progressives, but they really aren't, because they eschew most progressive ideas regarding finances.

 

[ugaboga232]

First of all, GAF is comprised of a lot of different voices, which you might have noticed by reading this thread full of people disagreeing.

That said, we do have a considerable number of posters who aren't so much real progressives as they are social liberals. They like to call themselves progressives, but they really aren't, because they eschew most progressive ideas regarding finances.

It has become painfully obvious in this thread, also a lot of people who do not understand how healthcare or insurance provided by employers actually works.

 

[hawk2025]

It certainly wouldn't be. That's why the full cost of a UHC program should largely be born by businesses. Individuals in this country largely have no idea what the full cost of coverage is for themselves and their families. It's best to just cut them out of the accounting.

Ok, but we are talking specifically about the pass-through of health savings from employer HC. I'm even completely ignoring the way that taxes impact the economy in practice, and focusing strictly on the thought experiment of "The company will not pay $X in health insurance anymore: What happens?"

The argument being made is that there will be significant pass-through of the savings. I am arguing that while the pass-through may be significant for high-level employees with many options, it will be significantly less so or close to zero precisely to the people that would need the pass-through the most: The lower quantiles of the distribution that are also impacted by a higher tax burden.

 

[besada]

It has become painfully obvious in this thread, also a lot of people who do not understand how healthcare or insurance provided by employers actually works.

Well, yeah, that too. To be fair, GAF has a high number of people on it who've literally never had to work for a living, pay regular rent, hold down a job, etc. because they are young. It's hard to blame a nineteen year old for not fully understanding healthcare or employee provided insurance.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Do you think that plan is free? Did you not see the graphs showing that your amazing healthcare plan probably costs your employer many thousands? You have to be making a ton where the loss due to payroll tax is more than the healthcare savings.

uh no, I know exactly how much it costs.

Its around $5000 or around 6% (i.e. the proposed payroll tax increase) so I am saying its a wash, I would not expect a raise or savings on the part of the employer for my situation.

One thing I am not clear on - is it 6.5% payroll tax on both the employer and employee?

 

[Goro Majima]

Your employer pays a heck of a lot more than 30 dollars a month. And I said earlier that companies have to be forced to pass along a lot of their savings in the form of increased wages for this to be workable earlier in the thread.

Wouldn't the proposed massive increase in minimum wage sap a lot of those increased savings for employers? At least for companies that have a lot of low wage employees?

I'm just skeptical that the savings would actually get passed down to middle management types.

 

[ugaboga232]

Ok, but we are talking specifically about the pass-through of health savings from employer HC.

The argument being made is that there will be significant pass-through. I am arguing that while the pass-through may be significant for high-level employees with many options, it will be significantly less so or close to zero precisely to the people that would need the pass-through the most: The lower quantiles of the distribution that are also impacted by a higher tax burden.

Who needs the pass-through the most? It would be people where a 6.5% payroll tax/whatever increased income tax is greater than healthcare spending. These people are already in the top ~15% of earners in this country. They should hopefully be able to handle it. Or can vote for someone else.

uh no, I know exactly how much it costs.

Its around $5000 or around 6% (i.e. the proposed payroll tax increase) so I am saying its a wash, I would not expect a raise or savings on the part of the employer for my situation.

One thing I am not clear on - is it 6.5% payroll tax on both the employer and employee?

It is on the employer and Vox assumes it is passed through 100% (research suggests it is close to that).

Well, yeah, that too. To be fair, GAF has a high number of people on it who've literally never had to work for a living, pay regular rent, hold down a job, etc. because they are young. It's hard to blame a nineteen year old for not fully understanding healthcare or employee provided insurance.

To be fair I also didn't know crap about this 4 years ago at 19 but now that i am entering the healthcare field I have been more personally invested and also had a lot of lectures on it. Even navigating my own insurance is annoying and I have what is supposed to be a great plan from my school.

 

[slightconfuse]

heathcare and education free/reduced

sign me the fuck up

 

[WonkyPanda]

I am a scientist/soonish to be doctor, this is what everyone is pushing for (obviously the how and when are hotly debated but some form of universal healthcare is the optimal solution). I have no idea what you mean about drones, it seems like you think the taxes are decoupled from the medicare for all plan. And most health insurance makes GP visits free or cheap, I am talking about anything other than GP.



You make more than ~85% of the population, who should be paying for it if not the upper middle class and upper class? And you will probably not lose much money once the healthcare is factored in.

My healthcare is ~$4200 a year pre-tax. ~$10,000 is a huge chunk of money; I pay heavily for exceptional healthcare coverage. Will my coverage be even better with that much more coming out of my pocket?

How do you expect people in this situation, with student loan amounts around ~2k a month, which isn't tax deductible by the way because the income cap is a fucking joke, to save money and invest in critical facets of the economy, like real estate. And, if you rent, because you live in an expensive market, you don't get the luxury of a mortgage deduction.

I don't have capital gains. I don't have multiple properties. Shit, I don't even have one, and you want to tax me to hell and high water before I can even begin to build a foundation?

We're the ones who get fucked because we can't afford the savvy accountants who can actually reduce our effective tax rate relative to the lower brackets. That's why these systems fail. The people footing the bills are those most easily exploitable for having a "high" income.

 

[hermit7]

First of all, GAF is comprised of a lot of different voices, which you might have noticed by reading this thread full of people disagreeing.

That said, we do have a considerable number of posters who aren't so much real progressives as they are social liberals. They like to call themselves progressives, but they really aren't, because they eschew most progressive ideas regarding finances.

The other issue is in terms of macro vs micro economics. The average person has no idea what the effects of a plan are going to be unless they get real calculations.

I consider myself a progressive but couldn't really quantify the numbers until I had read this.

 

[noshten]

Wouldn't the proposed massive increase in minimum wage sap a lot of those increased savings for employers? At least for companies that have a lot of low wage employees?

I'm just skeptical that the savings would actually get passed down to middle management types.

But that's the point, companies get savings from healthcare costs but all companies would need to give a $15 minimum wage by 2020. This allows more worker mobility and people who can pursue higher education while working a part time job at a livable wage(obviously some places need to be even more progressive than what Sanders proposes).

Voting for Bernie so damn hard. Looking forward to ignorance, dishonesty and deliberate misrepresentation in attempts to argue against it though. Vox has not exactly been an unbiased voice of reason in their Bernie articles this election cycle.

I find some articles offputting but this one wasn't one of them - does it leave out healthcare savings or glosses over them, or other programs that would be funded by this increase such as infrastructure & education and omitting that this is all a platform where by 2020 minimum wage would be $15.
But that would make for an awfuly long article. While I personally believe in all the programs I don't think they are realistic dates since movements and people need to get involved to actually fight for these changes in the GE, midterms etc. But it's a nice ideal to look forward to. It's not even the feasibility of the programs but rather the realization of how broken the system is.

 

[Your Entertainer]

Voting for Bernie so damn hard. Looking forward to ignorance, dishonesty and deliberate misrepresentation in attempts to argue against it though. Vox has not exactly been an unbiased voice of reason in their Bernie articles this election cycle.

 

[btrboyev]

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.

Well put it this way. If sanders was president and we switched to universal healthcare, an employee would no longer have to provide health care, thus some income could be raised.

 

[Steel]

Well, yeah, that too. To be fair, GAF has a high number of people on it who've literally never had to work for a living, pay regular rent, hold down a job, etc. because they are young. It's hard to blame a nineteen year old for not fully understanding healthcare or employee provided insurance.

I also get the impression that a lot of people think that the money for these types of programs could somehow entirely be funded by taxing the top X%, when that's simply not how it works.

 

[-COOLIO-]

looks good to me.

 

[Dr_LucienSanchez]

That said, we do have a considerable number of posters who aren't so much real progressives as they are social liberals. They like to call themselves progressives, but they really aren't, because they eschew most progressive ideas regarding finances.

This is particularly astute. I think people also claim to like the ideas of universal health care and public colleges being free, but once they come to the realization that to achieve those goals we need to raise taxes across the board, they quickly jump off board.

 

[Goro Majima]

But that's the point, companies get savings from healthcare costs but all companies would need to give a $15 minimum wage by 2020. This allows more worker mobility and people who can pursue higher education while working a part time job at a livable wage(obviously some places need to be even more progressive than what Sanders proposes).

Which makes sense for the minimum wage workers but wouldn't result in the salary increases for the middle class to offset the increased tax burden. Unless I'm missing something?

 

[ugaboga232]

My healthcare is ~$4200 a year pre-tax. ~$10,000 is a huge chunk of money; I pay heavily for exceptional healthcare coverage. Will my coverage be even better with that much more coming out of my pocket?

How do you expect people in this situation, with student loan amounts around ~2k a month, which isn't tax deductible by the way because the income cap is a fucking joke, to save money and invest in critical facets of the economy, like real estate. And, if you rent, because you live in an expensive market, you don't get the luxury of a mortgage deduction.

I don't have capital gains. I don't have multiple properties. Shit, I don't even have one, and you want to tax me to hell and high water before I can even begin to build a foundation?

We're the ones who get fucked because we can't afford the savvy accountants who can actually reduce our effective tax rate relative to the lower brackets. That's why these systems fail. The people footing the bills are those most easily exploitable for having a "high" income.

You seem like you want your cake and to eat it. Your employer pays probably double what you pay which is right around the 15k (unless your employer is a wizard that chains doctors in the basement for you). I will soon be joining this income bracket in getting hosed but a lot of people will benefit.

 

[BigBeauford]

People who think Employers will compensate their employees accordingly because they just had their insurance burden lessened are treading into Sam Brownback territory.

 

[btrboyev]

A $4,500 tax increase on the middle class? Sanders is out of his mind. Go be president of Norway, please.

Jesus Christ, stop looking at the bottom line number. Just think that one hospital visit for prescription could easily eat up that entire cost or more in a day. Those taxes could pay for your healthcare.

 

[LegendofJoe]

Ok, but we are talking specifically about the pass-through of health savings from employer HC.

The argument being made is that there will be significant pass-through. I am arguing that while the pass-through may be significant for high-level employees with many options, it will be significantly less so or close to zero precisely to the people that would need the pass-through the most: The lower quantiles of the distribution that are also impacted by a higher tax burden.

There would need to be requirements put in place to force significant cost savings pass through to all employees. Businesses should be allowed to pocket some of it to get them on board, but if they don't pass most of the savings on to their employees UHC will never make it.

 

[mackattk]

Well, yeah, that too. To be fair, GAF has a high number of people on it who've literally never had to work for a living, pay regular rent, hold down a job, etc. because they are young. It's hard to blame a nineteen year old for not fully understanding healthcare or employee provided insurance.

Also makes sense because younger people tend to not have as many health problems. That is the really scary thing, it only takes one accident before you are in a world of pain and buried in medical bills. "How am I going to pay for this" is the last thing that I want to be thinking about if I have a medical emergency. Sadly, it is something I have been through before.

It will take a little while for everything to stabilize after a plan like this, but I would think most people in the US would eventually have a far better life than they have now.

 

[blodtann]

I cannot afford this plan at all. I'm even on the shittiest healthcare plan my company offers. The 3K I pay a year in healthcare is not going to offset a 15K tax increase.

What are his plans for reducing cost, not just increasing revenue?

 

[btrboyev]

People who think Employers will compensate their employees accordingly because they just had their insurance burden lessened are treading into Sam Brownback territory.

Well that's where you are wrong, because many employers already do this for people who elect not to take health benefits because they get it from a spouse. It's actually fairly common.

 

[BigBeauford]

Well that's where you are wrong, because many employers already do this for people who elect not to take health benefits because they get it from a spouse. It's actually fairly common.

Because "some" do that I am wrong?

 

[Angelus Errare]

Real talk. That shit just isn't going to fly. No matter how much you explain it an easy attack will be "he's going to tax the hell out of you"

That shit wouldn't play well with a lot of democrats

Unfortunately.

 

[ugaboga232]

I cannot afford this plan at all. I'm even on the shittiest healthcare plan my company offers. The 3K I pay a year in healthcare is not going to offset a 15K tax increase.

What are his plans for reducing cost, not just increasing revenue?

Read his medicare for all proposal but its standard healthcare stuff, less administrative costs, better incentive structures, bargain for drugs, easier access to preventative healthcare which saves a ton of money.

Saving money for you in particular is harder especially if you voluntarily take a crappy healthcare plan for more money when you already make more than ~85% of people in this country. You will get better healthcare which is nice.

 

[TheLastCandle]

I'm not certain I trust most employers to pass savings onto me that they will save on healthcare. Unless they are forced, I guess.

 

[Tesseract]

Real talk. That shit just isn't going to fly. No matter how much you explain it an easy attack will be "he's going to tax the hell out of you"

That shit wouldn't play well with a lot of democrats

Why? Why can we not, in the height of the information age, make this shit fly?

 

[blodtann]

Well that's where you are wrong, because many employers already do this for people who elect not to take health benefits because they get it from a spouse. It's actually fairly common.

It actually the opposite for us after Obama Care. My wife gets penalized for bring me on to her insurance by an ridiculous amount, and I get 0 rewards from my company for not using their insurance.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

even though it would benefit them most, he really should have done the utmost to not increase taxes on those under 100k
politically this is toxic

Trying to bank roll free healthcare + free college at the same time is probably too ambitious too.

Truthfully I would raise that to $200k.

Even $100k isn't a lot of money these days if you live in New York or California.

 

[WonkyPanda]

You seem like you want your cake and to eat it. Your employer pays probably double what you pay which is right around the 15k (unless your employer is a wizard that chains doctors in the basement for you). I will soon be joining this income bracket in getting hosed but a lot of people will benefit.

If you're alluding to the employer passing this onto the employee, in the face of higher corporate taxes, I would ask for more evidence in this regard. How does this put me in a similar position, or one that isn't ~10k in a deeper hole?

Why not, then, actually fix the issue for young professionals. Fix the student debt issue. Allow for federal refinancing, remove the income cap on deductions.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Well that's where you are wrong, because many employers already do this for people who elect not to take health benefits because they get it from a spouse. It's actually fairly common.

I only pay around $1k/year of the cost for my health insurance. If I switched to another insurance provider outside the company, I wouldn't have that $1k taken out of my paycheck anymore, but I don't think there's any mechanism for me to automatically get a raise equal to the amount I'm saving my company by no longer being covered by them.

 

[Marty Chinn]

You seem like you want your cake and to eat it. Your employer pays probably double what you pay which is right around the 15k (unless your employer is a wizard that chains doctors in the basement for you). I will soon be joining this income bracket in getting hosed but a lot of people will benefit.

I always hear it's super expensive, but somehow my employer is paying just under $4000 a year for my medical benefits and the plan is pretty decent. It's nowhere close to 15k.

 

[Lumination]

First of all, GAF is comprised of a lot of different voices, which you might have noticed by reading this thread full of people disagreeing.

That said, we do have a considerable number of posters who aren't so much real progressives as they are social liberals. They like to call themselves progressives, but they really aren't, because they eschew most progressive ideas regarding finances.

Of course I read the thread and of course I know not EVERYONE disagrees with Sanders's tax policy just like not everyone on gaf is liberal.

The point of my comment was to be a blunt realization of exactly what you described in your second paragraph. Just doesn't have the same impact when you have to add a bunch of footnotes at the end.

 

[ugaboga232]

If you're alluding to the employer passing this onto the employee, in the face of higher corporate taxes, I would ask for more evidence in this regard. How does this put me in a similar position.

Why not, then, actually fix the issue for young professionals. Fix the student debt issue. Allow for federal refinancing, remove the income cap on deductions.

We are talking about healthcare only now, i think he wants those two things as well and thats a separate issue. Employers will save lots of money except on people whose income is more than ~16.6 times their healthcare cost (which is probably very very few people). I don't have any papers on the pass through effect though im sure some exist confirming or denying it. At the end of the day, if you are in the top quintile, you will probably pay more tax under a sanders presidency. Such is life, vote for a republican if you like (not that sanders or this plan would ever pass/get voted in).

I always hear it's super expensive, but somehow my employer is paying just under $4000 a year for my medical benefits and the plan is pretty decent. It's nowhere close to 15k.

Gonna call shenanigans unless its some crazy kaiser based new age plan which is where everyone is going to. You are well under the average cost paid by employer and employee and you seem to get a ton of healthcare so something isn't adding up. Also, since you are in the top income quintile, you probably will have to pay more taxes. Such is life.

 

[border]

So we are in agreement? Those lower skill job holders either have crap health insurance or none at all so the 6% payroll tax even if not compensated at all will save them a ton of money.

The problem with all of this thinking is that the flipside to Sanders' tax increase on personal income is that it's accompanied by a massive tax increase on businesses. The employer's savings on healthcare costs are immediately going to be offset by those hikes. And if an employer wasn't offering health insurance in the first place for low skill workers, it ultimately results in lower wages for the employees.

It seems crazy to think that businesses are going to both eat an increase in payroll tax AND pass 100% of health care savings on to their employees.

 

[JohnsonUT]

Real talk. That shit just isn't going to fly. No matter how much you explain it an easy attack will be "he's going to tax the hell out of you"

That shit wouldn't play well with a lot of democrats

While I agree, this is why Sanders rise as a candidate is so important. At least the conversation is being had. The transition in the US is going to be so slow and painful, but each time it is discussed, maybe a few more people will become educated about how health care works, how UHC would work, the real cost of employer provided care, etc.

 

[noshten]

Which makes sense for the minimum wage workers but wouldn't result in the salary increases for the middle class to offset the increased tax burden. Unless I'm missing something?

I want a future for my children so I look at higher taxes as an investment. While also I believe there is a humanitarian need to provide a better safety net for those at most danger. The World needs more kinship and we all need to pay our part into it - we cannot constantly be just thinking about the short term benefit to one, but instead think about the long term benefit to all. Providing more help and investing into infrastructure for those in need should be something we all do, even if it's just a form of taxation towards society.

 

[Zoe]

I always hear it's super expensive, but somehow my employer is paying just under $4000 a year for my medical benefits and the plan is pretty decent. It's nowhere close to 15k.

Well the plan is intended to be progressive.

 

[besada]

Of course I read the thread and of course I know not EVERYONE disagrees with Sanders's tax policy just like not everyone on gaf is liberal.

The point of my comment was to be a blunt realization of exactly what you described in your second paragraph. Just doesn't have the same impact when you have to add a bunch of footnotes at the end.

It has the benefit of actually being true, as well as saving you from getting banned.

 

[ugaboga232]

The problem with all of this thinking is that the flipside to Sanders' tax increase on personal income is that it's accompanied by a massive tax increase on businesses. The employer's savings on healthcare costs are immediately going to be offset by those hikes. And if an employer wasn't offering health insurance in the first place for low skill workers, it ultimately results in lower wages for the employees.

It seems crazy to think that businesses are going to both eat an increase in payroll tax AND pass 100% of health care savings on to their employees.

What? where did I say that. They will probably pass on some of the savings which negates part of the tax burden in the article. Where is this massive tax increase on businesses? I am not fully aware of all of sanders plans on the business side so you will have to educate me there. Minimum wage would also be hiked.

 

[blodtann]

Read his medicare for all proposal but its standard healthcare stuff, less administrative costs, better incentive structures, bargain for drugs, easier access to preventative healthcare which saves a ton of money.

Saving money for you in particular is harder especially if you voluntarily take a crappy healthcare plan for more money when you already make more than ~85% of people in this country. You will get better healthcare which is nice.

I am all for socialized medicine, but if the cost of that is 12K a year, they have to come up with something better. Without looking at the top 4 posts on the budget nothing will balance it. That is the problem, nobody wants to go after medicare, social security, medicaid and military contractors.

If Sanders can cut those 4 posts on the budget by 30+% then we would be in a great place.

 

[Senoculum]

Sanders is the smartest guy in the room. These taxes will help the country ten fold in the years to come. People may not like it... but I honestly think everyone needs to look at the big picture, at how infrastructure will help help them and their kids' future.

 

[G.ZZZ]

This thread is why Trump will win. If even a "liberal leftist" forum like GAF is so socially conservative , the rest of the american public probably consider anything coming out of europe (and most of the world tbh since the US are a bit of an exception) just as devilish contraptions of the communist satan.

Who will be there to listen when you will go broke for health reasons and cry? Who will be here to help you when your job line goes extinct and there's no social security to keep you afloat? Social progress isn't free.

 

[ugaboga232]

I am all for socialized medicine, but if the cost of that is 12K a year, they have to come up with something better. Without looking at the top 4 posts on the budget nothing will balance it. That is the problem, nobody wants to go after medicare, social security, medicaid and military contractors.

If Sanders can cut those 4 posts on the budget by 30+% then we would be in a great place.

What are you even talking about with balancing the budget. We are talking healthcare. The cost is not 12k per person, you just happen be making more money than 80% of the population and will pay more to help others achieve healthcare which benefits society. I doubt the cost will end up even being 12k for you at the end of the day when all the benefits vs costs are added up but even so that is what socialized medicine is.

 

[Violet_0]

Some people are really against free healthcare?

Wow...

apparently so, when higher tax rates are involved. I mean, the nation was founded on the principle of not wanting to pay taxes, after all*. But I have to wonder how some people thought socialism is getting funded in other countries until now

*I keed

 

[NimbusD]

Why would you even try to compare plans that call for tax cuts to those that call for hikes. They have completely different end goals, it's apple to oranges.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I want a future for my children so I look at higher taxes as an investment. While also I believe there is a humanitarian need to provide a better safety net for those at most danger. The World needs more kinship and we all need to pay our part into it - we cannot constantly be just thinking about the short term benefit to one, but instead think about the long term benefit to all. Providing more help and investing into infrastructure for those in need should be something we all do, even if it's just a form of taxation towards society.

I agree with all of this, but this isn't Sander's argument - the argument is "everyone aside from the evil 1% will be better off even with the higher taxes because you won't pay health insurance premiums anymore!"

If Sanders was making your argument, even though I'd still disagree with the idea he could win, I could approve of his arguments far more.