General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSanders 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/#24a8344e4e4bWhile 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 Acts 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. Thats 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
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... 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.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)exboyfil
(17,857 posts)The money to treat the preexisting conditions has to come from somewhere.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... insurance
leftstreet
(36,081 posts)Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)This wouldn't touch it. It should be considered as an offset, IMO.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)We better save the ACA.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)the lack of health insurance premiums being paid?
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)alarimer
(16,245 posts)For retired military and families, it's not much more than that.
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)Scruffy1
(3,239 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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.
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)Response to 6000eliot (Reply #10)
Name removed Message auto-removed
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)the healthcare they have now.
Response to 6000eliot (Reply #15)
Name removed Message auto-removed
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)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)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)"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.
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)Then be done.....forever?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)And they want us to hate them, too.
Ezior
(505 posts)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.
MichMan
(11,790 posts)DFW
(54,057 posts)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.
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)DFW
(54,057 posts)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)We'll have plenty of money to fund social and infrastructure programs.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)jalan48
(13,798 posts)Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)and the wealthy paid their fair share. But I get it now sorry.
jalan48
(13,798 posts)Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)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.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)using right wing talking points from a right wing source on a discussion board that is SUPPOSED to be liberal.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)There has to be money involved. There's really no other rational explanation.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)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)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.
CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)Joe941
(2,848 posts)roamer65
(36,739 posts)I would also be in favor of a 5 percent national GST. 10 percent GST on luxury items.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)future.
Scruffy1
(3,239 posts)CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)DFW
(54,057 posts)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)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.
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 hasnt 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: Dont 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)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.
melman
(7,681 posts)LO-FUCKING-L
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Forbes is almost as horrid and without as pretending people are accusing one of being in a cult for a more flavorful martyrdom...
Good point.
I wasn't pretending at all. That poster was absolutely 100% doing just that.
Coventina
(26,874 posts)Let's do this!!!
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)Always in favor of the rich.
dkhbrit
(110 posts)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.
Coventina
(26,874 posts)If you aren't complaining, then what is the problem?
hack89
(39,171 posts)That is not rich.
Coventina
(26,874 posts)That's just ridiculous.
hack89
(39,171 posts)But I suspect you don't care. So I will let you have the last word. Have a good evening.
Coventina
(26,874 posts)You have a good evening as well.
DFW
(54,057 posts)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)alleviate.
DFW
(54,057 posts)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)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)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 This message was self-deleted by its author.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)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)health care.
Somehow, they have a tax system that has enabled them to do it for decades.
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,280 posts)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)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.
Autumn
(44,765 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,076 posts)former9thward
(31,805 posts)Since they were pulled from thin air it may be a gamble.
TheBlackAdder
(28,076 posts)former9thward
(31,805 posts)There really is no basis in the OP or Senator Sanders figures. What they really are is anyone's guess.
TheBlackAdder
(28,076 posts)Iggo
(47,489 posts)socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)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)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)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?
treestar
(82,383 posts)It would be that we pay via taxes, instead of directly.