Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

Yes, but what you argued is directly contradicting what he advocated with his tax plan. There is absolutely a difference of degree between Sander's plan and Obama's, but your point of "fuck you for telling me I should put back in to the society that enabled my success" is not liberal or progressive. It's a right-wing position that not many Democrats, even moderate ones, share.

You mistake giving money to the government corporation as "putting back into society."

 

[Boombloxer]

Some of the arguments in here...
"Why give more to the government for it to waste"
"It's easier to spend other people's money"
"SS+medicare are sinks and so too will other welfare programs"

America deserves 100 years of Dubya and Reagan. You guys would certainly enjoy Bush's "fiscal straitjacket" conservatism as long as he promises to cut taxes for you all. Worked out well for us in the end I guess.

Less hyperbole, more actual listening would help you.

Bernie can fuck off with those tax hikes. Ridiculous. Good thing he doesn't have a chance so it's all a pipe dream.

Yep. My taxes would increase a lot more than the few thousands some are acting like its nothing.

Lol wut? Pay your share back in? The fuck on.

Yea, I already do this. You sorta have too; you can go without paying any taxes, but for a certain range of of income, it's pretty much just reduction.

Hey jackass, who do you think pays for the roads you drive one? The plumbing that comes to your house? The electrical lines in a lot of cases that feed your house with electricity. The fire department that comes and saves your ass when your house is burning down.

Uh, me? Again, people are acting like some of us are balking as we sip Mimosas and eat crumpets, when the reality is far from that.

I work for a electric utility. The portion you pay on your bill is a recoup on costs incurred by said utility to provide growth for a more stable grid. Same goes with the water utility and roads.

So bscause I'm already taxed the fuck back and forth to hell and back because I'm doing well for myself is "fuck you, got mine"? No. Fuck you.

The huge tax increase for someone in my salary range is ridiculous and no one should be happy about it.

My salary already goes to a social security that I'll never see. It goes to Medicare and Medicaid that I don't qualify for. And Obamacare that I'm glad that passed.

I'll see social security, but not really planning on it as a source of income. Don't really have to worry about medical either, pay $0, full coverage. I don't mind paying a bit more, but the increase Id see is total horseshit.

 

[Kama_1082]

Less hyperbole, more actual listening would help you.



Yep. My taxes would increase a lot more than the few thousands some are acting like its nothing.



Yea, I already do this. You sorta have too; you can go without paying any taxes, but for a certain range of of income, it's pretty much just reduction.



Uh, me? Again, people are acting like some of us are balking as we sip Mimosas and eat crumpets, when the reality is far from that.



I'll see social security, but not really planning on it as a source of income. Don't really have to worry about medical either, pay $0, full coverage. I don't mind paying a bit more, but the increase Id see is total horseshit.

My insurance is so-so. It's a $83 a paycheck premium with a $5000 family deductible that's paid into with pretax funds. It's not too bad as it lowers my taxable income.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

$14k more a year? Fuck you Bernie, you and the rest of the government will still fucking waste my money.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

The bolded



And that's not even accounting for the actual costs of healthcare that members would incur without Sanders healthcare plan, like high deductibles, or worse, services that aren't covered under typical insurance plans.

If your new 4k-15k tax hike will eventually pay for your potential $20k-$100k medical bill, I'd say that your savings are disproportionately beneficial to you as a citizen than your tax hike not directly benefiting you.

I pay 15k a year extra in taxes for 20 years just so my 100k medical bill later in life is covered? Yeah under that plan I'm in the hole 200k. I'd rather keep that money in my pocket thank you very much.

 

[Zoe]

Nowhere do they explain why take-home pay would rise by $3200.

The "free college" portion of Sanders' plan isn't even covered by the income tax hike, IIRC. It's supposed to be covered by new taxes on banks/Wall Street. You can go to a state university for less than 9K a year though.

I'm still at a loss to see where the savings are coming from.

https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/friedman-memo-1.pdf

Family Income $						50,000	
Health insurance premiums $				4,955	
Health insurance deductibles $				1,318	
2.2% income-based premium on households $		466	
Savings $						5,807	
Savings share of income 				12%

Based on a family of four with a family insurance plan.

 

[Flai]

$14k more a year? Fuck you Bernie, you and the rest of the government will still fucking waste my money.

Universal healthcare is "wasting money"? Okay...

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

Universal healthcare is "wasting money"? Okay...

Until this government can prove it can do anything efficiently, then absolutely it is.

 

[brainchild]

Except that's not what you said. Welfare isn't the same as a program and infrastructure funded by taxes that stops you from losing your home if you lose your job. The government doesn't stop that from happening. Unemployment, which you pay into with your taxes, certainly helps you get by but without having savings to begin with, welfare/unemployment isn't going to save your mortgage payments.



It is relevant but you seem to pick the things that fit your narrative and ignore the things that don't. The person YOU replied to was balking at the notion of having to prop up other programs at a huge expense to him that would greatly impact his ability and lifestyle. It's not merely he has a surplus sitting around he can give away. You then jumped at him about where does all this infrastructure come from as if he isn't paying taxes that pays for that infrastructure. In fact he has no issue with paying those taxes for that infrastructure. So he's already putting back in to the system. The only way your accusation makes any remote sense is if he's doing tax evasion.

I bet you think you got me figured out and that I'm against paying more for universal health care. That couldn't be even remotely on target. I'm actually not against having my taxes raised. I do understand how such a huge tax increase is going to negatively impact people and think that some of the expected increases are insane given that it's in addition to the taxes they're already paying. That's asking a lot for people who don't have that surplus laying around as is. I'm all for people putting in to the system to help better society but it by no means should be at the expense of crippling people in the process.



I'm not ignoring those costs at all. I've even factor in the deductible that people get and it still doesn't add up for you to come out ahead. That $3200 assumes they're getting at least $266 pulled out of their paycheck every month for premiums. I know that's not the case for a lot of people out there. I think the $3200 gain is a lot of hand waving and positive outlook that so far as I've seen hasn't been justified to be reality. Show me where that comes from and we can start with that and figure out where all the other savings are coming from. Many of those things you listed won't apply to people or they won't ever seen the gain to offset what they put in in the long run. What they will see is money that could have gone into savings, investments or retirement disappearing in up front tax hikes.

The premiums taken out of your paycheck would have to be nearly 3 times what I pay to see a $3200 savings. And that's assuming that the base tax rate isn't increased at all....when it all but certainly will be.

You believe that people's annual medical bills (with insurance) range from 4-10K? I don't deny that health care is expensive, but the big expenditures are relatively infrequent.

I pay 15k a year extra in taxes for 20 years just so my 100k medical bill later in life is covered? Yeah under that plan I'm in the hole 200k. I'd rather keep that money in my pocket thank you very much.

All of you are free to challenge the veracity of their data and statistics; I was just explaining the basis for how the tax hike would affect citizens. If you don't believe them because you think that their numbers are wrong, that's an entirely different argument.

As far as the costs in medical bills, there's always the risk that what you pay over the long term is more than what you end up benefiting from over the long term, but that applies to any insurance plan. Conversely, there's always the chance that what you pay for with Sanders healthcare over the long term is significantly less than what you end up benefiting from over the long term, and since it's always better to err on the side of caution when it comes to your health, I think the investment is more than worth the risk. Of course, you're free to disagree, but there is no right or wrong on this matter (since we can't predict when someone will have an astronomical medical bill) just a difference in preference.

 

[boredofcanada]

If it improves the standard of living for all of us then I'm all for it.

 

[border]

https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/friedman-memo-1.pdf

Family Income $						50,000	
Health insurance premiums $				4,955	
Health insurance deductibles $				1,318	
2.2% income-based premium on households $		466	
Savings $						5,807	
Savings share of income 				12%

Based on a family of four with a family insurance plan.

They aren't weighing those savings against the income tax increase, which the OP estimates at around 4K.

 

[Zoe]

They aren't weighing those savings against the income tax increase, which the OP estimates at around 4K.

The employer pays the income tax increase, which for a 50K income would be considerably lower than what they currently pay.

The employee gets a 2.2% tax, the employer gets a 6.2% tax.

Edit: And that 2.2% tax is only on taxable income, which for a family of four with standard deductions is $28,800.

 

[magnifico]

Until this government can prove it can do anything efficiently, then absolutely it is.

Social Security is one of the most efficient programs in the nation and has never missed a payment. DARPA is also very efficient. Most government programs are miles more efficient than anything in the private sector especially when properly funded and staffed. Most private ventures are full of waste and fail after the first few years.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Last year, at the age of 27, I had a few routine physicals, dental visits (just cleanings), and a colonoscopy. I can't look up the dental bills at the moment, or the costs of my monthly sertraline and methylphenidate prescriptions, but,

When you look at my premiums, my portion of the claims, and going off of memory of what the dental and medicine bills have routinely been, my total medical expenses were roughly 4K last year. As a healthy 27 year old with 1 diagnostic procedure and routine care.

The tax increase would be a wash.

 

[brainchild]

Last year, at the age of 27, I had a few routine physicals, dental visits (just cleanings), and a colonoscopy. I can't look up the dental bills at the moment, or the costs of my monthly sertraline and methylphenidate prescriptions, but,

When you look at my premiums, my portion of the claims, and going off of memory of what the dental and medicine bills have routinely been, my total medical expenses were roughly 4K last year. As a healthy 27 year old with 1 diagnostic procedure and routine care.

The tax increase would be a wash.

And that's just for routine/preventative healthcare. If you broke your jaw next week, the tax hike would be a net positive.

 

[magnifico]

You also can't look at the taxes in a vacuum. 95 percent of American households will likely see their take-home pay go up under Bernie Sanders' tax plans.

http://usuncut.com/politics/sanders-shoots-down-tpc-analysis-of-tax-plan/

 

[border]

The employer pays the income tax increase, which for a 50K income would be considerably lower than what they currently pay.

The employee gets a 2.2% tax, the employer gets a 6.2% tax.

Edit: And that 2.2% tax is only on taxable income, which for a family of four with standard deductions is $28,800.

The chart is kind of disingenuous then, since it's lumping the employer's tax increase in with the employee's tax increase when most people are just going to look at it and think that their personal tax burden is going to increase by thousands of dollars. That said I guess it remains to be seen what extracting trillions of dollars in new taxes (or ending tax credits for providing health care) is going to do to wages.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Also I live in Minnesota, I'm single, ineligible for the rent credit on my taxes. I probably already pay several thousand more in income taxes than most households with my income. I think I'll be okay.

 

[benjipwns]

Social Security is one of the most efficient programs in the nation and has never missed a payment.

Neither did Madoff until the end.

Most government programs are miles more efficient than anything in the private sector

By what standard? What government programs are directly competing with the same services in the private sector without using their political leverage?

Most private ventures are full of waste and fail after the first few years.

That's a good thing, the problem with the monopoly corporate state is that it won't go out of business no matter how bad its practices.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Neither did Madoff until the end.


By what standard? What government programs are directly competing with the same services in the private sector without using their political leverage?


That's a good thing, the problem with the monopoly corporate state is that it won't go out of business no matter how bad its practices.

Medicare does not have the bargaining power of private drug plans. It's actually artificially handicapped.

 

[brainchild]

You also can't look at the taxes in a vacuum. 95 percent of American households will likely see their take-home pay go up under Bernie Sanders' tax plans.

http://usuncut.com/politics/sanders-shoots-down-tpc-analysis-of-tax-plan/

Check out the last couple of pages

 

[Zoe]

The chart is kind of disingenuous then, since it's lumping the employer's tax increase in with the employee's tax increase when most people are just going to look at it and think that their personal tax burden is going to increase by thousands of dollars. That said I guess it remains to be seen what extracting trillions of dollars in new taxes (or ending tax credits for providing health care) is going to do to wages.

Yeah, there have been people saying that since this was first posted. Guess you can blame the author.

 

[benjipwns]

Medicare does not have the bargaining power of private drug plans. It's actually artificially handicapped.

It basically sets the prices for a lot of stuff though simply because of its market size.

It was dumb not to make Medicare For All the public option.

 

[noshten]

You also can't look at the taxes in a vacuum. 95 percent of American households will likely see their take-home pay go up under Bernie Sanders' tax plans.

http://usuncut.com/politics/sanders-shoots-down-tpc-analysis-of-tax-plan/

So this seems very good actually

 

[TheLaughingStock]

You also can't look at the taxes in a vacuum. 95 percent of American households will likely see their take-home pay go up under Bernie Sanders' tax plans.

http://usuncut.com/politics/sanders-shoots-down-tpc-analysis-of-tax-plan/

http://www.cfapubs.org/doi/abs/10.2469/faj.v21.n6.127

There's literature spanning north of 70 years that you can read for free from both public and private sector as well.

If taxes are forecasted over the projection to be over $15T and spending at $14T, then the federal gov't took a contractionary stance on the fiscal side. And other factors will have to offset the taxes. 15 > 14.

 

[benjipwns]

15 > 14.

This is a right-wing myth promoted by shady corporate interests.

 

[Damaniel]

So this seems very good actually

Note the asterisk: Employers are assumed to be willing to pay their workers wages that are equal to what employers now pay in total costs for cash wages, health insurance, and payroll taxes.

People actually believe this will happen? This is sheer stupidity on par with 'if we cut taxes, the wealth will trickle down!' The only people who think that corporations will 'pass the savings' (and not just the savings, but the entire employer-side costs of their insurance plans) onto their employees has either never worked a day in their lives or has only worked at an employer with a couple employees. Having to base your numbers on the altruism of corporations (especially rich coming from a group of people who consider corporations to be the devil) is asking for failure.

 

[benjipwns]

I think it might have more to do with how separating that in the data would be way too much work for a campaign promotion.

 

[Josh5890]

Social Security is one of the most efficient programs in the nation and has never missed a payment. DARPA is also very efficient. Most government programs are miles more efficient than anything in the private sector especially when properly funded and staffed. Most private ventures are full of waste and fail after the first few years.

Social Security is a time bomb. I am 25 and I am paying weekly into a system I will never see a dime of. That is why I have a 401K. I know I won't see that social security check.

 

[brainchild]

Note the asterisk: Employers are assumed to be willing to pay their workers wages that are equal to what employers now pay in total costs for cash wages, health insurance, and payroll taxes.

People actually believe this will happen? This is sheer stupidity on par with 'if we cut taxes, the wealth will trickle down!' The only people who think that corporations will 'pass the savings' (and not just the savings, but the entire employer-side costs of their insurance plans) onto their employees has either never worked a day in their lives or has only worked at an employer with a couple employees. Having to base your numbers on the altruism of corporations (especially rich coming from a group of people who consider corporations to be the devil) is asking for failure.

And just how much shittiness should we extrapolate from these employers and compile into presentable data? The reality is that there really isn't a better alternative assumption. You could also assume that no employer would pass on the savings, but that would be equally unrealistic.

Some employers WILL pass on the savings, and that will drive competition between employers, fighting for employees. So in the end, it won't be about altruism, but capitalism.

 

[thelastcrusader]

Fuck this shit and fuck taxes. Tenemos familias Bernie, can't be paying these kinds of taxes.

 

[brainchild]

Fuck this shit and fuck taxes. Tenemos familias Bernie, can't be paying these kinds of taxes.

LMAO

 

[br3wnor]

Bernie would never get these tax increases passed anyway so it's a moot point but living on Long Island, I'm def cool with no more tax increases. It's funny I consider myself liberal but as I'm getting older and really entrenched in the work force (and thinking about home ownership) I find myself becoming more and more fiscally conservative.

 

[God Dayumm]

Universal healthcare is "wasting money"? Okay...

No, but Israel, Afghanistan and Syria are. And Bernie has prorities in those

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

And just how much shittiness should we extrapolate from these employers and compile into presentable data? The reality is that there really isn't a better alternative assumption. You could also assume that no employer would pass on the savings, but that would be equally unrealistic.

Some employers WILL pass on the savings, and that will drive competition between employers, fighting for employees. So in the end, it won't be about altruism, but capitalism.

Do you believe trickle down economics actually worked?

 

[Marty Chinn]

And just how much shittiness should we extrapolate from these employers and compile into presentable data? The reality is that there really isn't a better alternative assumption. You could also assume that no employer would pass on the savings, but that would be equally unrealistic.

Some employers WILL pass on the savings, and that will drive competition between employers, fighting for employees. So in the end, it won't be about altruism, but capitalism.

Here's a simple way to check; how many people get the full value or anything of their health care value added to their paycheck when they opt out of taking the benefit right now? That should tell you if they will or not. Go talk to your HR person and ask them how much larger your paycheck will get.

 

[God Dayumm]

Here's a simple way to check; how many people get the full value or anything of their health care value added to their paycheck when they opt out of taking the benefit right now? That should tell you if they will or not. Go talk to your HR person and ask them how much larger your paycheck will get.

People don't understand why employers offer healthcare and other benefits instead of cash. It is like opting out of vacations; I'm not going to be reimbursed for them unless it is my quit day and had some days left. And this another reason why any savings will not be passed down.

 

[Zoe]

Note the asterisk: Employers are assumed to be willing to pay their workers wages that are equal to what employers now pay in total costs for cash wages, health insurance, and payroll taxes.

People actually believe this will happen? This is sheer stupidity on par with 'if we cut taxes, the wealth will trickle down!' The only people who think that corporations will 'pass the savings' (and not just the savings, but the entire employer-side costs of their insurance plans) onto their employees has either never worked a day in their lives or has only worked at an employer with a couple employees. Having to base your numbers on the altruism of corporations (especially rich coming from a group of people who consider corporations to be the devil) is asking for failure.

You missed the first part of that asterisk. According to this, the 6.2% employer healthcare contribution reduces your tax liability. The average person doesn't currently pay 6% of their salary towards premiums. The 2.2% employee contribution is then taken out of that lower taxes liability which means the effective rate is lower than that.

 

[brainchild]

Do you believe trickle down economics actually worked?

You can make as many false equivalencies as you want; I'm not taking the bait.

Here's a simple way to check; how many people get the full value or anything of their health care value added to their paycheck when they opt out of taking the benefit right now? That should tell you if they will or not. Go talk to your HR person and ask them how much larger your paycheck will get.

This situation isn't even remotely the same as a company having to overhaul their entire payroll process. Apples to oranges.

 

[Dragmire]

I have yet to see a fair breakdown of Sanders' proposals that wasn't later exposed to have connections to opposing interests. This analysis isn't terrible but it isn't quite fair...

In fact, I just looked this up and Wikipedia says, "In 2002, tax specialists who had served in the Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton administrations established the Tax Policy Center to provide analysis of tax issues". Of course. All of those were corporatist administrations. That may not affect their analysis, but there is a real chance that it does. Simply being based in Washington means that this could be an establishment interpretation of his tax proposals.

As the Sanders' campaign pointed out in response to the TPC analysis, TPC framed their analysis in a vacuum without accounting for the overall savings most Americans would have. That seem like an easy way to misrepresent the entire point of his tax policy, which is part of a bigger picture to bring money back to the lower and middle classes... Money that should have been going in their direction to begin with. The Vox article doesn't really come off that negatively. But nevertheless, it is conveyed out of context. What use does the average American have for a tax analysis without the appropriate context, when it is really part of a bigger picture?

I have learned better than to suspend all disbelief with this kind of news story. The media and "think tanks" have not been conveying the whole truth during this election.

And my opinion is that the higher tax brackets should have been paying more to begin with, so I can't really sympathize with them or think of it as a loss. The system was skewed in their favor, and it needs to be rebalanced. Unless you disagree with taxation altogether, it has its purpose and it has not been doing its job supporting the lower and middle class.

 

[AstroNut325]

Fuck this shit and fuck taxes. Tenemos familias Bernie, can't be paying these kinds of taxes.

Even if it brings healthcare and education to them?

 

[Special C]

I make a about 120k a year, so.. No way in heck I'm supporting bernie sanders. I'm fine with paying my share but this is excessive. It's not like I live in a mansion and have a yacht or anything crazy like that.

 

[AstroNut325]

I make a about 120k a year, so.. No way in heck I'm supporting bernie sanders. I'm fine with paying my share but this is excessive. It's not like I live in a mansion and have a yacht or anything crazy like that.

So we're stuck with the private healthcare system and costly university system forever?

 

[thelastcrusader]

Even if it brings healthcare and education to them?

Correct, even if. Those taxes are ridiculous.

 

[Special C]

So we're stuck with the private healthcare system and costly university system forever?

Private Healthcare isn't in a great place but It's possible to introduce reforms instead of completely socializing the issue.

I don't know about other states, but in my state it's really easy to get a lottery scholarship, you just have to be committed enough to make good grades and keep at it.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

You can make as many false equivalencies as you want; I'm not taking the bait.

Both seem like situations where it is stated that savings by the rich/corporations will find their way down to employees. For someone who spends every stump speech barking on how corporations are greedy its strange that Bernie is hinging the effectiveness of his health care proposal on corporations not being greedy.

Unless his plan includes some law that forces employers to hand over any savings in their healthcare costs directly to their employees in the form of salary i wouldnt trust any of these potential savings numbers.

 

[Marty Chinn]

People don't understand why employers offer healthcare and other benefits instead of cash. It is like opting out of vacations; I'm not going to be reimbursed for them unless it is my quit day and had some days left. And this another reason why any savings will not be passed down.

Ya, I was just having this debate yesterday with someone who made the false assertion that people were actually aware and had the knowledge of how their benefits fit into the equation and of course would demand compensation.

You can make as many false equivalencies as you want; I'm not taking the bait.

Actually it's not a terrible comparison. Trickle down economics is the government giving financial benefits to businesses through taxes with the idea that gain in finances would help grow the company, increase wages and benefit the people under them. That's been shown to be false.

Here this would be the government giving financial benefit to businesses by removing the cost burden of providing health care with the hope that those savings will be passed on to the people under them in the form of wage increases.

It's a similar situation. If businesses don't pass it on when they receive financial tax gains why would they have any incentive to do it here when they receive a different financial tax gain?

This situation isn't even remotely the same as a company having to overhaul their entire payroll process. Apples to oranges.

No, it is the same because people don't expect to be compensated when the opt out of using their health care benefit now, nor do companies compensate them usually. So why all of a sudden would people expect to be compensated under this plan when their current thinking does not place a monetary value on the benefit? They are going to see either way that they are getting health care like they do now when they opt out to use someone else's and don't expect anything in return. People don't associate a dollar value to their benefits as part of their total compensation even though they should.

Both seem like situations where it is stated that savings by the rich/corporations will find their way down to employees. For someone who spends every stump speech barking on how corporations are greedy its strange that Bernie is hinging the effectiveness of his health care proposal on corporations not being greedy.

Unless his plan includes some law that forces employers to hand over any savings in their healthcare costs directly to their employees in the form of salary i wouldnt trust any of these potential savings numbers.

Yep this. Just to add on, people don't even know how much companies are paying for the benefit so how can they even begin to have an expectation of how much they are owed?

 

[TheFuzz]

Would happily pay more in taxes to make my life and the lives of people around me better. Unfortunate that many others don't feel the same.

That's a great theory... However, I have a problem paying 10% more of my salary to help "those around me" when I can use that 10% to handle my children's tuition and medical expenses without letting the government do it for me.

If someone could implement those ideas it'd be great, however.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

That's a great theory... However, I have a problem paying 10% more of my salary to help "those around me" when I can use that 10% to handle my children's tuition and medical expenses without letting the government do it for me.

If someone could implement those ideas it'd be great, however.

Over time, I think the wages would go up to reflect the globalized marked. Things have a way of readjusting itself over time. In many countries with similar health care, the wages also become much higher. I think it's about taking the plunge first of all.


The other thing you have to consider that public universities being free will most likely lower the price of private educations to remain competitive and an attraction option. Of course top schools like Harvard and such, probably not, but a good chunk of high quality univs would probably be a lot cheaper. A better and happier society has a tendency foster that same tendency in other areas)

 

[eBay Huckster]

Come on, really?

We can't get big money out of healthcare now, how is that going to get any better with a government mandated single payer system?

In the event that you check this thread again: he actually agrees with you on that point (re: the government end, at least), he's just being snarky.