Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

factfinder_77

(841 posts)
Wed Sep 20, 2017, 06:40 PM Sep 2017

Sanders will increase total fedreal taxes with 25 % to pay for his health plan and free college.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/01/19/bernie-sanders-is-proposing-really-big-tax-increases/#24a8344e4e4b

Saners estimates his “Medicare for all” health plan alone would cost nearly $1.4 trillion annually. To help finance it, he’s proposing a 6.2 percent employer tax, which he calls an “income-based health care premium” (and which would likely be passed on to workers). And a 2.2 percent income-based tax on most households. And income tax rate hikes on income in excess of $250,000, with a top rate of 52 percent, a level the US has not seen since 1981. And big rate hikes on most investment income, which would be taxed at the same rate as wages. And he’d expand the estate tax and cap the value of deductions at 28 percent for those making $250,000 or more.

While Sanders describes his top rate as 52 percent, top-bracket taxpayers would be paying up to 58 percent rate (the 52 percent base rate, plus the 2.2 percent health premium, plus the Affordable Care Act’s 3.8 percent surtax on investment income, which Sanders would keep).

Sanders estimates the employer tax would raise $630 billion annually, the individual income tax hike would bring in about $210 billion, the rate hikes on ordinary income would raise $110 billion, and the tax hikes on capital gains and other investment income would bring in $92 billion. That’s a $1 trillion-a-year tax hike.

How big is that? Well, the federal government expects to collect an average of about $4 trillion a year in revenues over the next decade. A $1 trillion tax hike on a $4 trillion base is really big.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/01/19/bernie-sanders-is-proposing-really-big-tax-increases/#24a8344e4e4b

92 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sanders will increase total fedreal taxes with 25 % to pay for his health plan and free college. (Original Post) factfinder_77 Sep 2017 OP
Why in the hell isn't McCaskils (sp) idea being floated more? Single payer for pre existing ... uponit7771 Sep 2017 #1
I think her idea is brilliant. The far left hates her. Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #23
So who pays? exboyfil Sep 2017 #66
From the people with the PEC but it'll be affordable vs getting shafted like they would with private uponit7771 Sep 2017 #67
OMG how will the military buy aircraft carriers? leftstreet Sep 2017 #2
The taxes covering that remain the same. Weekend Warrior Sep 2017 #5
The point is that it will never happen. Anyone that thinks taxes like that are coming is delusional. Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #24
How much of that rise in taxes is countered by........ socialist_n_TN Sep 2017 #3
Here you go HarmonyRockets Sep 2017 #6
Another masterstroke by Bernie... gotta love his tenacity and leadership! InAbLuEsTaTe Sep 2017 #37
There is zero chance an $844 annual premium for 4 people can fund a good healthcare program. nt stevenleser Sep 2017 #53
$844 is not funding it, the taxes on the 1% are Not Ruth Sep 2017 #56
Look at Tricare alarimer Sep 2017 #59
Music to my ears Not Ruth Sep 2017 #55
Bingo. Scruffy1 Sep 2017 #91
Sounds good to me HarmonyRockets Sep 2017 #4
All sorts of things are actually possible. G_j Sep 2017 #7
voodoo math on this one taught_me_patience Sep 2017 #8
Yeah HarmonyRockets Sep 2017 #9
Or perhaps to show you the reality we face...best to save the ACA, next a public option then Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #25
The "Everyone Gets a Pony" tax. 6000eliot Sep 2017 #10
Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2017 #13
I mean that this is a ridiculous pipe dream at a time when millions are threatened with the loss of 6000eliot Sep 2017 #15
Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2017 #18
You are definitely wrong. I've always believed that Medicare for All was the way 6000eliot Sep 2017 #22
It has nothing to do with Sen. Sanders. It just won't happen and millions will lose coverage. There Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #26
"Everyone gets a pony" sounds like passing out luxuries for free. JustABozoOnThisBus Sep 2017 #16
And these things are going to happen now, in the current political atmosphere, how, exactly? 6000eliot Sep 2017 #17
Single payer won't happen... until 20 at least and I don't think even then. Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #27
Can I keep my 12 ponies and give 4 away snooper2 Sep 2017 #34
If you like your pony, you can keep your pony jberryhill Sep 2017 #51
Ryan and McConnell agree that health care and education are ponies. Orsino Sep 2017 #46
For comparison (Germany) Ezior Sep 2017 #11
Germany also has a 19% VAT nm MichMan Sep 2017 #19
It would be nice if that were the same for everyone in Germany DFW Sep 2017 #69
90% taxes seems excessive Not Ruth Sep 2017 #77
That was my impression as well. DFW Sep 2017 #79
Let's go back to the Make America Great Again tax rates of the 1950's. jalan48 Sep 2017 #12
You have to consider what is possible...50 style taxes will not happen. Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #28
It was a joke-Trump wants to go back the past and I say let's go back to the tax rate back then. jalan48 Sep 2017 #33
I wish we could go back to those times where everyone had deductions ...not just the rich Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #38
No problem-we can do almost anything we want-WE are the government. jalan48 Sep 2017 #40
Sadly, we do not have enough who feel this way. Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #41
Can we have just one day without attacks on Bernie Sanders? left-of-center2012 Sep 2017 #14
I am more annoyed with the attacks on medicare for all m-lekktor Sep 2017 #21
At this point Nevernose Sep 2017 #30
Ridiculous...there is no point in even discussing Medicare for all at this moment as Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #39
"which the GOP will demonize" melman Sep 2017 #47
I want to know how "NO WE CAN'T!" is going to drive people to vote CherokeeFiddle Sep 2017 #75
thank you. Joe941 Sep 2017 #57
Sounds great to me. roamer65 Sep 2017 #20
Yeah and if we proposed half the stuff suggested here we would lose every election in the forseeable Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #29
Like we've been overwhelmingly successful running on status quo.n/t Scruffy1 Sep 2017 #92
Likewise here! CherokeeFiddle Sep 2017 #32
Every state has the right to levy its own version of GST already, and most do. DFW Sep 2017 #80
This is Republican scare mongering CherokeeFiddle Sep 2017 #31
No. He is doing it wrong KWR65 Sep 2017 #35
Forbes? melman Sep 2017 #36
Forbes is almost as horrid and without LanternWaste Sep 2017 #42
Yeah melman Sep 2017 #43
btw melman Sep 2017 #44
If the top 5% paid their fair share it would be no problem. Coventina Sep 2017 #45
Really? dkhbrit Sep 2017 #48
Yes, I do. The tax brackets have been lowered, and lowered, and lowered over and over again. Coventina Sep 2017 #49
Define 'rich' dkhbrit Sep 2017 #63
If you are in the top 10% you are rich. Coventina Sep 2017 #64
$110k puts you in the top 10% hack89 Sep 2017 #71
Being better off than 90% of your fellow citizens is not rich? Coventina Sep 2017 #72
Not if you live in a high cost area hack89 Sep 2017 #73
I find it hard to muster tears for those making six figures, I confess. Coventina Sep 2017 #74
Making $110K living in Manhattan and making $85K in Waxahatchie, TX DFW Sep 2017 #81
I understand that, but that is something free college and universal healthcare could help to Coventina Sep 2017 #82
Help, but only on a minor basis. DFW Sep 2017 #83
I guess we just can't see eye-to-eye on this. Coventina Sep 2017 #84
Two things DFW Sep 2017 #86
This message was self-deleted by its author taught_me_patience Sep 2017 #68
The top 5% of payers represent 34% of total AGI taught_me_patience Sep 2017 #50
Whatever other countries are doing, especially the Scandinavian ones, that gives them universal Coventina Sep 2017 #65
The people that will be paying more in taxes are the ones who can afford to, the 1% Not Ruth Sep 2017 #52
Stuff has to be paid for, one way or another. The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2017 #54
A drop in the bucket compared to $700 BILLION for the military alarimer Sep 2017 #58
If that's true, it's still well worth it. Autumn Sep 2017 #60
So, if I pay $10,000 in taxes, I pay $12,500... and get to eliminate my $10,000 Employer Med Plan? TheBlackAdder Sep 2017 #61
If you believe those figures, yes. former9thward Sep 2017 #87
Well, the way the article is presented seems to place a scare that a 25% increase is a bad thing. TheBlackAdder Sep 2017 #88
Yes, but would it be 25%? former9thward Sep 2017 #89
You gotta start somewhere. But 15%, 25%, 35% or whatever will surely pound the 1%ers. TheBlackAdder Sep 2017 #90
I find you very entertaining of late. Iggo Sep 2017 #62
Huge thread on this, going in all sorts of directions............ socialist_n_TN Sep 2017 #70
So an opinion piece from a pro-business mag is now a fact? Bradshaw3 Sep 2017 #76
Since free college isn't being presented GaryCnf Sep 2017 #78
We shouldn't call these things "free" treestar Sep 2017 #85

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
1. Why in the hell isn't McCaskils (sp) idea being floated more? Single payer for pre existing ...
Wed Sep 20, 2017, 06:43 PM
Sep 2017

... conditions where the insurance companies will charge those with PEC high rates medicare medicaid can pick them up as payees instead of the government.

It sounds like a win win;

Insurance companies get the sick off their books
People can pay an affordable premiums
Sooner or later the insurance companies will kick every perfectly healthy person off via high premiums and shrink and die.

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
67. From the people with the PEC but it'll be affordable vs getting shafted like they would with private
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 03:20 PM
Sep 2017

... insurance

 

Weekend Warrior

(1,301 posts)
5. The taxes covering that remain the same.
Wed Sep 20, 2017, 07:04 PM
Sep 2017

This wouldn't touch it. It should be considered as an offset, IMO.

Demsrule86

(68,355 posts)
24. The point is that it will never happen. Anyone that thinks taxes like that are coming is delusional.
Wed Sep 20, 2017, 10:39 PM
Sep 2017

We better save the ACA.

 

HarmonyRockets

(397 posts)
6. Here you go
Wed Sep 20, 2017, 07:07 PM
Sep 2017
The typical middle class family would save over $4,400 under this plan. Last year the typical working family paid an average of $5,277 in premiums to private health insurance companies. Under this option, a typical family of four earning $50,000, after taking the standard deduction, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All –just $844 a year –saving that family over $4,400 a year. Because of the standard deduction, families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium.


https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

Scruffy1

(3,239 posts)
91. Bingo.
Sat Sep 23, 2017, 09:35 AM
Sep 2017

This whole article is just BS. Typical right wing talking points. I'm just glad that someone is starting the negotians without capitulating first. Sure, we'll proabaly never get everything we want, but in order to compromise you have to start somewhere besides the bottom.

 

HarmonyRockets

(397 posts)
4. Sounds good to me
Wed Sep 20, 2017, 07:04 PM
Sep 2017


Employers pay a tax, but still end up saving money since they're not covering employees anymore. A 2.2% increase on households, which is a smaller amount than the average person pays on premiums now. So people save money too. Except the rich, whose taxes will increase. Meanwhile, everyone has access to fully comprehensive healthcare with no deductibles or copays.

Thanks for the post, OP.

G_j

(40,366 posts)
7. All sorts of things are actually possible.
Wed Sep 20, 2017, 07:07 PM
Sep 2017
http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/19/investing/norway-pension-fund-trillion-dollars/index.html

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029611796

This pension fund is now worth $1,000,000,000,000

By Ivana Kottasová September 19, 2017: 6:44 AM ET

Norway's giant pension fund is now worth over $1 trillion. Yes, 1 followed by 12 zeros.

The fund's managers announced Tuesday that currency shifts had helped push its value above $1 trillion for the first time.

"The growth in the fund's market value has been stunning," fund chief Yngve Slyngstad said in a statement. "I don't think anyone expected the fund to ever reach $1 trillion when the first transfer of oil revenue was made in May 1996."

For comparison: $1 trillion is roughly the size of Mexico's economy.

Norway is a major oil producer, and it has plowed its energy earnings into the fund in order to fund pensions and other government expenses.

The fund is among the world's biggest investors in stocks, owning $667 billion worth of shares in over 9,000 companies globally. It owns on average 1.3% of all listed companies worldwide.


..more..
 

taught_me_patience

(5,477 posts)
8. voodoo math on this one
Wed Sep 20, 2017, 07:21 PM
Sep 2017

Estimated costs 1.4T. New taxes 1T. Only 400B short every year. Never mind the fact that total healthcare spending was $3.4T last year... the estimated cost of 1.4T is a complete joke.

 

HarmonyRockets

(397 posts)
9. Yeah
Wed Sep 20, 2017, 07:26 PM
Sep 2017

This OP has been dredging up every anti-medicare-for-all or anti-single payer article he/she can possibly find to smear it. Almost every one of this OP's threads could be alerted for "spreading right wing talking points."

Demsrule86

(68,355 posts)
25. Or perhaps to show you the reality we face...best to save the ACA, next a public option then
Wed Sep 20, 2017, 10:42 PM
Sep 2017

Medicare for over 55, and I like Sen. McCaskill's idea about pre-existing. That is what is possible. Single payer will not happen with taxes like that.

Response to 6000eliot (Reply #10)

6000eliot

(5,643 posts)
15. I mean that this is a ridiculous pipe dream at a time when millions are threatened with the loss of
Wed Sep 20, 2017, 07:52 PM
Sep 2017

the healthcare they have now.

Response to 6000eliot (Reply #15)

6000eliot

(5,643 posts)
22. You are definitely wrong. I've always believed that Medicare for All was the way
Wed Sep 20, 2017, 09:07 PM
Sep 2017

to fix the problem. I just think we should concentrate our energies on fighting to keep what we have at the moment.

Demsrule86

(68,355 posts)
26. It has nothing to do with Sen. Sanders. It just won't happen and millions will lose coverage. There
Wed Sep 20, 2017, 10:43 PM
Sep 2017

is no way to pass this coverage without a 60 vote majority in the Senate...we have that twice in thirty years...briefly.

JustABozoOnThisBus

(23,283 posts)
16. "Everyone gets a pony" sounds like passing out luxuries for free.
Wed Sep 20, 2017, 07:53 PM
Sep 2017

"Everyone gets health insurance" sounds like a basic right.

"Everyone gets education" sounds reasonable, but needs more individual targeting as to major or trade. College used to be much more affordable, but state universities seem to have lost much state funding.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
46. Ryan and McConnell agree that health care and education are ponies.
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 12:34 PM
Sep 2017

And they want us to hate them, too.

Ezior

(505 posts)
11. For comparison (Germany)
Wed Sep 20, 2017, 07:39 PM
Sep 2017

Strictly speaking, it's not a tax in Germany, because we have companies running the health care system. They are very strictly regulated though.

Employees pay 7.3% of their salary before taxes
Employers pay another 7.3% of monthly salaries before taxes
=> I think this is like a 14.6% income tax.

However, companies can ask for "additional fees" on top of that. Usually it's 0.5% - 2%, depending on the company, paid entirely by the employee. (This is the same for every customer of the insurance company. So pre-existing conditions do not lead to higher additional fees.)

If you earn more than 4,350.00€ ($~5,150) a month, you only pay 7.3% of 4,350.00€, so the premiums are capped at 317.55€ ($377) for employee and employer each, plus "additional fees" for the employee. And if you earn more than 4,800€ / month, you can opt out of this system and buy "normal" private insurance, which is usually cheaper than 635€ / month, because premiums depend on your health status and not on income level.
"Normal" private insurance companies are also required by law to offer basic insurance plans for 635€ if you can't use the normal "strictly regulated" system, they can't kick you out of these plans and have to accept anyone, no matter which pre-existing conditions you might have. Most patients can join the normal system though, that basic private insurance plan is usually just a fill-in for edge cases (freelancers wo can't afford a free-market plan because of bad pre-existing conditions, etc).

The plans include dental and mental health care, though you'll only get cheap dental stuff, so many patients buy private insurance for better dental care. The plans don't include eyeglasses. There is a small surcharge for medication (5€-10€ each), a higher surcharge for dental prosthetics (35%-50%), 10€ per day in hospital, and a few more. Accumulated surcharges per year are limited to 1% (chronically ill patients) or 2% (everyone else) of your yearly income.

DFW

(54,057 posts)
69. It would be nice if that were the same for everyone in Germany
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 04:11 PM
Sep 2017

But it is not.

My wife took early retirement at age 60 due to heath issues and mobbing at work. I have had to pay around €700 (all together) a month for her health insurance ever since. Now that she turned 65 in June, her German version of Medicare is supposed to kick in. We are still waiting for the paperwork to come through. As for me, the figure of €635 is a number from Fantasyland. I have a pre-existing condition. When I moved here in 2011, I went to HUK Coburg to ask about a "privat" health insurance plan. They quoted me €2500 a month, or €30,000 a year. $36,000 a year for health insurance. Wonderful deal. My employer is in the USA, so the set-up here doesn't apply to me. I just pay my bills here and send them home, where Blue Cross systematically denies any responsibility for them. It's still cheaper than $36,000 a year.

When my wife had cancer again last year, her insurance did cover it, so the €700 a month turned out to be worth it. But it is no bargain here, and the idiots that insist on claiming Germany is some kind of health insurance paradise with single payer for all give the impression they also wait up at night on Halloween for the Great Pumpkin to arise. This doesn't even take into account the difference in first class (privat) care that maybe 10% of Germans get, and the second class care that he rest of the population (Kassenpatienten) gets.

Plus, with me, the tax authorities want to ignore the double taxation treaty. On source-taxed income I get in the USA (I am a US citizen), after the 39.6% that goes to the US government, the Germans want a further 50% (max tax plus Soli, plus plus), leaving me with about 10% of my gross income. This is completely against the double-taxation treaty. A neighbor of ours is a judge on the Finanzgreicht zu Düsseldorf, a professor of tax law at the University of Bonn, and wrote his PhD on double taxation. He tells us what the tax authorities are trying to do is completely illegal, but Enteignung is still popular in the Ämtern here. It didn't disappear in 1945, just the official term.

DFW

(54,057 posts)
79. That was my impression as well.
Fri Sep 22, 2017, 04:11 AM
Sep 2017

Bureaucrats will be bureaucrats. Unfortunately, here they are all-powerful and can never be fired. They only heed a higher authority when forced to by the courts, which it appears is where I'm headed. There is another possibility I'm looking into, according to KPMG, USA. A lawyer can force a conference between tax authorities of the two countries in cases of double taxation. It is called "competent authority." That is where they are forced to decide who gets what and not to doubly tax an individual. I'm looking for someone here who knows what that is and can invoke it. Some lawyers here (I assume, like everywhere) like running up billable hours more than they like helping their clients, and I have to find one who gives priority to the task at hand. It's a crappy situation, but I refuse to let myself get robbed of my salary and retirement fund because some bureaucrat is too lazy to read the fine print of a treaty to which his country is a signatory.

jalan48

(13,798 posts)
12. Let's go back to the Make America Great Again tax rates of the 1950's.
Wed Sep 20, 2017, 07:43 PM
Sep 2017

We'll have plenty of money to fund social and infrastructure programs.

Demsrule86

(68,355 posts)
38. I wish we could go back to those times where everyone had deductions ...not just the rich
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 09:04 AM
Sep 2017

and the wealthy paid their fair share. But I get it now sorry.

Demsrule86

(68,355 posts)
41. Sadly, we do not have enough who feel this way.
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 09:36 AM
Sep 2017

I am a liberal...I want it all, but I have been forced to accept that our country has moved towards the center. For me it is all about regaining power...and stopping the GOP from destroying progressive policy dating back to Roosevelt. A Republican administration moves the country to the right and a Democratic administration moves the country left. It is vital we win in 18 and 20.

m-lekktor

(3,675 posts)
21. I am more annoyed with the attacks on medicare for all
Wed Sep 20, 2017, 08:34 PM
Sep 2017

using right wing talking points from a right wing source on a discussion board that is SUPPOSED to be liberal.

Demsrule86

(68,355 posts)
39. Ridiculous...there is no point in even discussing Medicare for all at this moment as
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 09:07 AM
Sep 2017

it can't pass...and we need to focus on saving the ACA...Many of us want to win in 18 and 20...I hope most, and that won't happen if we run on medicare for all which the GOP will demonize; this is why they want the CBO score. They are trying to get votes for murdercare/tax bill based on the need to stop 'Bernie's socialized medicine'. It is a legitimate argument to say now is not the time to discuss or even introduce Medicare for all-regardless of it merits. Run on the ACA, add a public option after we get back in power...lower the Medicare age to 55...we can do this if we play it smart.

 

melman

(7,681 posts)
47. "which the GOP will demonize"
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 12:47 PM
Sep 2017

What won't they demonize?

I see a lot of this 'let's not do anything until we're back in power' lately. 'Let's not even talk about anything.' How is that people think that's a way to get back in power. Makes no sense at all.

roamer65

(36,739 posts)
20. Sounds great to me.
Wed Sep 20, 2017, 08:30 PM
Sep 2017

I would also be in favor of a 5 percent national GST. 10 percent GST on luxury items.

Demsrule86

(68,355 posts)
29. Yeah and if we proposed half the stuff suggested here we would lose every election in the forseeable
Wed Sep 20, 2017, 10:46 PM
Sep 2017

future.

DFW

(54,057 posts)
80. Every state has the right to levy its own version of GST already, and most do.
Fri Sep 22, 2017, 04:36 AM
Sep 2017

It's called "sales tax." If we have both local sales tax AND a national sales tax, who will decide if one offsets the other or what is deductible where? Plus, GST (VAT here in Europe) has turned out to be government heroin. Once instituted, it never remains where it is. No GST starting at 5% will remain there. What started out at around 10% here in Europe is now at or over 20% in most countries. They can't get enough of it, and it never gets reduced. Who does it affect most? The people with the smallest incomes, of course. Let states decide how much they need, and keep the local politicians responsible for their economies, since they have to answer to their own constituents.

Here in Germany, what you pay for gasoline consists of the price of the gas, a big mineral oil tax, and then VAT on top of both the gasoline AND the oil tax. So here you pay tax on a tax. I asked a friend who is a judge on the tax court here if that was even legal, and he said no, but a judge can't actively strike down an illegal statute. It has to be challenged in court before a judge can declare it illegal, and no individual has the time or the money to do bring a case to save the few hundred dollars a year in excess taxes he is paying.

 

CherokeeFiddle

(297 posts)
31. This is Republican scare mongering
Wed Sep 20, 2017, 10:56 PM
Sep 2017

And it is VERY easy to spot. Do you know why?

Read the rest of the article which demonizes Bernie's support for *gasp!* carbon tax!

Where is the talk about how much money people would save because they are no longer having to pay astronomical prices on their prescription drugs or having to premiums? No where.

This was put forth today in the Daily Beast. Be vigilant of what you read folks! Because you are seeing that right here up above!

The Republican National Committee Is Weaponizing Bernie Sanders’ Single-Payer Plan


........."Obamacare failed spectacularly and devastated the American healthcare system," the talking points read. "If we allow for a complete government takeover, hardworking families nationwide will face crippling tax increases, higher wait times, and worse care."
There is little to no chance that his proposal becomes law; at least not anytime soon. But that hasn’t stopped Republicans from trying to take political advantage of it.
Two days before Sanders even introduced the bill, the RNC put out an accumulation of clips intended to highlight both the cost of the proposed legislation and other Democrats who have previously voiced opposition to the idea, intending to create a wedge on the issue.
Last Wednesday the RNC continued their crusade and released a video attempting to portray failures of the single-payer system throughout the world with dire and scary music overlaid. It ends with the message: “Don’t Let Democrats Bring a $32 Trillion Nightmare to the United States.” http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-republican-national-committee-is-weaponize-bernie-sanders-single-payer-plan



Don't play into Republican hands!

KWR65

(1,098 posts)
35. No. He is doing it wrong
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 02:11 AM
Sep 2017

He needs a flat tax on every employer for each employee no matter how many hours they work. The cost for Medicare for each person on it is $11,000 per year. A $11,000 tax on a full time worker would be $5 per hour. We must also push the fact that employers will no longer have to pay for private health insurance. In addition there should be a flat 3% income tax on all income no matter the source for people and corporations.

The $11,000 per year employer tax for each employee will raise about: $1,540,000,000,000

Also we will have to regulate the cost of medications so that the your money or your life medical care goes away. The model for medication now is if it now costs $1M for a cancer cure and a pharmacy company can make a drug for $10,000 to cure cancer they will charge $800,000 for the drug.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
42. Forbes is almost as horrid and without
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 11:45 AM
Sep 2017

Forbes is almost as horrid and without as pretending people are accusing one of being in a cult for a more flavorful martyrdom...

dkhbrit

(110 posts)
48. Really?
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 12:57 PM
Sep 2017

Thanks for the blanket statement. I'm lucky to be in the top 5% (just) and I pay a whole lot of tax already. Want me to pay more?

It might come as a surprise to some of you but there are plenty of us who earn well and pay plenty of tax too. I have no offshore havens or suchlike - I pay my dues like everyone else. And I've worked bloody hard for it too.

Coventina

(26,874 posts)
49. Yes, I do. The tax brackets have been lowered, and lowered, and lowered over and over again.
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 01:02 PM
Sep 2017

Always in favor of the rich.

dkhbrit

(110 posts)
63. Define 'rich'
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 02:00 PM
Sep 2017

You originally said top 5% - my taxes have done nothing but go up as I have earned more - especially over the last 3 years. Care to comment on that? Sure, for some folks at the very top it might have been great and their rate went down, but not for a lot of us. I'm not complaining, I just hate this blanket 'lets increase taxes for the top 5%' bullshit.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
73. Not if you live in a high cost area
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 07:56 PM
Sep 2017

But I suspect you don't care. So I will let you have the last word. Have a good evening.

Coventina

(26,874 posts)
74. I find it hard to muster tears for those making six figures, I confess.
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 07:58 PM
Sep 2017

You have a good evening as well.

DFW

(54,057 posts)
81. Making $110K living in Manhattan and making $85K in Waxahatchie, TX
Fri Sep 22, 2017, 05:07 AM
Sep 2017

The man in Texas has more money in his pocket after taxes and cost of living. Texas doesn't even have a state income tax. Manhattan has both a city tax and a state income tax, not to mention local sales taxes off the chart. Just comparing gross income means absolutely nothing if cost of living is not figured in.

In India, for that matter, being better off than 90% of one's countrymen means you get something to eat every day.

Coventina

(26,874 posts)
82. I understand that, but that is something free college and universal healthcare could help to
Fri Sep 22, 2017, 05:52 AM
Sep 2017

alleviate.

DFW

(54,057 posts)
83. Help, but only on a minor basis.
Fri Sep 22, 2017, 06:51 AM
Sep 2017

None of that will change the regional cost of housing, local taxes, food and other essentials. College and health care are only part of any household contends with, no matter how many people are involved.

Besides, college and health care are never "free." They have to be paid for one way or another. The professors/doctors don't work for free. The buildings aren't erected by contractors for free. The utilities are not provided for free. It's a matter of redistributing the costs without sacrificing the quality of education/health care provided. I was in Sweden once complimenting them (I speak Swedish) on their access to health care, and the Swedes I was talking to laughed, and said, "ja, men man måste vara nästan död för att komma i sjukhuset (yes, but you have to be almost dead to get admitted to a hospital)." They have their limitations as well. There is no system where some blanket paradise has been established. The reason no successful socialist state has ever been established is that once the state administrators have taken all the wealth and power for themselves, they inevitably find a reason why a large chunk of both should be awarded to themselves. Human nature can't be legislated, unfortunately (or, maybe, fortunately).



Coventina

(26,874 posts)
84. I guess we just can't see eye-to-eye on this.
Fri Sep 22, 2017, 11:57 AM
Sep 2017

I'm nowhere near six figures in my income, and I wouldn't mind giving up more of my money in taxes if it meant all of my fellow citizens had healthcare. Yes, I'm aware that every system has its issues, but most European nations have longer average life-spans than we do, so they must be doing SOMETHING right.

I became friends with a Swedish student who came over for a year of study abroad while we were in college.
He said the biggest surprise he found was that in America "freedom" is directly proportional to the amount of money you have.

DFW

(54,057 posts)
86. Two things
Fri Sep 22, 2017, 04:30 PM
Sep 2017

Most of us here in Europe attribute better longevity mainly to diet. We see American tourists here by the boatload, and at least half of them are so obese, wearing shorts to accentuate it, to boot, it hurts to look at them. And where do they go to eat? McDonald's, ordering heaps of fries, downing them with Coke. Even the best health care in the world won't save you if you insist on committing slow dietary suicide. A few dozen million people like that, and of course our statistical average longevity goes down. You won't see anywhere near so many obese Europeans, and nor do so many of them have such awful dietary habits. So of course their longevity here looks better as a statistic.

Second, "freedom" is always relative to what you know and what you perceive. A couple of decades ago I persuaded a Marxist German friend of mine to visit me in the USA. One day, we flew from Boston, where I was living at the time, down to northern Virginia, where I was born and originally grew up. We stayed at my parents' house, although they were traveling at the time. Curious, my German friend asked where I had my residence registered with the police. I had no idea what he was talking about, and asked what he meant. He asked me again if my police residence registration was in Virginia or in Massachusetts. I still had no idea what he was talking about, so I asked him to explain. In Germany, it turns out, you have to register your residence with the authorities ("polizeiliche Anmeldung" ). When you move to a town, you have to tell the police that you are moving there. When you leave, you have to tell them you're leaving and where you're moving to. Then you have to register again when you get to your new town. I asked if he was talking about the old East Germany, and he said no, West Germany, now all of Germany. I said we had no such thing. He asked what was the procedure for moving, then? I said you just pack your stuff and move. Tell the post office if you want your mail forwarded, but that was it. He was just floored. He was so positive we had some strict Soviet-style control over who lived where and when. He said, wow, that is freedom. I said no, it's more like your system is a lack of it.

When I moved my permanent residence to Germany, I had to go through this too. The procedure was handled by an office in the town hall, plus registering as a "resident foreigner," though once I proved I was not going to ask for welfare, had a steady job that was in the USA, and already spoke fluent German, they gave me my "green" card (it's not green here) in 2 months. After all, they got to cash in 50% of my income for doing nothing and give me zero in return. What could be a better deal for them? But I did ask what was with the police residence registry, and they explained it was so they could keep track of potential criminals. Ah! I get it--in Germany you think every citizen is a potential criminal, so you keep a close eye on everyone. In the States, I explained, the State assumes that you are probably not a criminal, and so we had no such system. Of course, with the internet, all that is sort of passé, but the mentality that set it up in the first place has not gone anywhere.

As for your income, your civil status and your place of residence both play a big part in whether you are comfortable or not. If you live somewhere in rural Vermont or North Dakota, or Iowa, or some similar place, and are single, then a salary like $45,000 is probably adequate to live on. However, if you live in Manhattan and are married and have two children, a gross salary of $75000 will leave you scrambling and penny-pinching to make ends meet. One can't go picking numbers out of a hat and pointing fingers without asking for the full picture. There are certainly parts of the USA where a gross salary of $110,000 is no life of luxury for a family, especially with school-age or college-age children. If they live in Manhattan, that will leave them, after federal, state and City tax, somewhere around a net of $65,000 to live on, or about $16,250 per person per year. From this comes rent, food, tuition, clothing, public transportation, etc etc etc, and all that at NY prices, with the 8.25% (or whatever it is now) sales tax on most things. Someone in that situation will definitely not be taking the family to Hawaii for two weeks or buying a new Mercedes to run up the Hudson Valley on weekends.

I know a little about this, as I have a daughter who lives and works in Manhattan. She makes nowhere near six figures, and after all the local taxes, she has enough to live on, but her trips home or to visit her sister or even to take a vacation are all subsidized by the rest of us, because she can't afford them on her own.

I find it a dangerous thing to point fingers at someone whose personal circumstances we don't know and tell them they have too much money. If you think differently, then you are correct, we can't see eye to eye on this.

Response to dkhbrit (Reply #63)

 

taught_me_patience

(5,477 posts)
50. The top 5% of payers represent 34% of total AGI
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 01:18 PM
Sep 2017

but 58% of total income tax collection. The income threshold for top 5% is about 150k. The current marginal tax rate for those payers is about 30% federal and another 8-10% in a high tax state. How much more is "fair" in your eyes?

Coventina

(26,874 posts)
65. Whatever other countries are doing, especially the Scandinavian ones, that gives them universal
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 02:15 PM
Sep 2017

health care.

Somehow, they have a tax system that has enabled them to do it for decades.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
54. Stuff has to be paid for, one way or another.
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 01:26 PM
Sep 2017

It seems to me that one might ask what will cost you less: paying a private insurance company for health insurance, or paying more in taxes for health care? If you are now paying $10,000 a year, plus copays and deductibles, for your health insurance (some of which will find its way into the pockets of insurance company executives), will you pay that much in increased taxes to cover something like Medicare for all? If your college tuition is $15,000 per year for a typical public university (private colleges cost much more), will your taxes go up by $15,000 per year for free college? (California had free state university tuition for years until Reagan killed it, and they managed.) The numbers described in the OP would seem to hit the rich a lot harder than those who really need help with health insurance and college, and that's just fine with me.

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
58. A drop in the bucket compared to $700 BILLION for the military
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 01:36 PM
Sep 2017

We could pay for free college, free health care, universal basic income, housing assistance and more just in what the Pentagon manages to lose in the couch cushions (the last time I checked 1 TRILLION was unaccounted for).

Just stop it already. I'm sure if Sanders said the sky was blue, some here would take issue with that as well.

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
89. Yes, but would it be 25%?
Fri Sep 22, 2017, 11:33 PM
Sep 2017

There really is no basis in the OP or Senator Sanders figures. What they really are is anyone's guess.

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
70. Huge thread on this, going in all sorts of directions............
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 06:55 PM
Sep 2017

and NOBODY has mentioned TAKING THE FUCKING PROFIT MOTIVE OUT OF HEALTHCARE ENTIRELY!

To me that proves just how brainwashed the modern Democratic Party has become with Reaganite bullshit.

Bradshaw3

(7,455 posts)
76. So an opinion piece from a pro-business mag is now a fact?
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 08:51 PM
Sep 2017

Before it was a survey from a pro- private insurance lobbying group that was used to discredit Sanders' plans, now it is a pro-Republican mag opinion piece. I thought the TOS prohibited using posting pro Republican opinion pieces but perhaps I'm wrong.

 

GaryCnf

(1,399 posts)
78. Since free college isn't being presented
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 10:08 PM
Sep 2017

at the moment, my assumption is that this story was written for the Democratic Presidential Primary, which I thought we weren't refighting.

Just a sec while I follow the link . . .

Yep, I was right.

Out of curiosity, did Mr. Gleckmam, who worked for Bush the Elder among others happen to mention that the increased tax burden on working people would be far less than 25%, and in fact less than their current insurance premiums, or was he wanting them to "share the rich's pain" by acting as if all taxpayers would be affected equally?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Sanders will increase tot...