HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Report: Bernie Sanders pr...

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:29 PM

 

Report: Bernie Sanders proposes $15T in tax increases, hitting most taxpayers .

Last edited Fri Mar 4, 2016, 08:39 PM - Edit history (2)

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has proposed $15.3 trillion in tax increases, according to a new†report, and would raise rates on virtually everyone, including the politically all-important middle class.

Not surprisingly for a candidate who has made income inequality his central issue, Sandersís plan would wallop the rich, an analysis released Friday by the Tax Policy Center shows.

The top 0.1 percent would see their tax bills go up by more than $3 million, the report said, which would cut their after-tax incomes by almost half.

But Sanders, going where few politicians dare, would also raise taxes on middle- and low-income families, with those in the dead center of the income spectrum facing a $4,700 tax increase. That would reduce their after-tax incomes by 8.5 percent, the report said.

Read more:†http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-tax-increases-220267#ixzz41xbGl1Yw

ETA: The funniest part about thread responses are that BERNIE ADMITTED MIDDLE CLASS TAXES WILL GO UP. Some of you just arent hearing it though.

https://lettertosanders.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/open-letter-to-senator-sanders-and-professor-gerald-friedman-from-past-cea-chairs/

89 replies, 4731 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 89 replies Author Time Post
Reply Report: Bernie Sanders proposes $15T in tax increases, hitting most taxpayers . (Original post)
JaneyVee Mar 2016 OP
litlbilly Mar 2016 #1
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #5
UglyGreed Mar 2016 #29
amborin Mar 2016 #2
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #11
TheBlackAdder Mar 2016 #3
drokhole Mar 2016 #4
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #7
Alfresco Mar 2016 #6
jillan Mar 2016 #8
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #9
jillan Mar 2016 #15
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #17
MattSh Mar 2016 #26
CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #28
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #37
2pooped2pop Mar 2016 #42
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #45
2pooped2pop Mar 2016 #48
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #50
TM99 Mar 2016 #64
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #66
TM99 Mar 2016 #69
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #72
TM99 Mar 2016 #74
Gothmog Mar 2016 #87
Nonhlanhla Mar 2016 #10
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #13
jillan Mar 2016 #16
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #19
jillan Mar 2016 #22
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #39
jillan Mar 2016 #40
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #51
dana_b Mar 2016 #52
oasis Mar 2016 #12
Armstead Mar 2016 #30
oasis Mar 2016 #33
Armstead Mar 2016 #36
oasis Mar 2016 #47
scscholar Mar 2016 #63
dana_b Mar 2016 #35
Gore1FL Mar 2016 #14
EndElectoral Mar 2016 #18
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #20
jillan Mar 2016 #25
Vinca Mar 2016 #21
jillan Mar 2016 #24
Go Vols Mar 2016 #89
dirtydickcheney Mar 2016 #23
HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #27
yodermon Mar 2016 #31
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #41
NurseJackie Mar 2016 #32
msanthrope Mar 2016 #79
NurseJackie Mar 2016 #80
msanthrope Mar 2016 #81
DefenseLawyer Mar 2016 #34
CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #38
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #43
redstateblues Mar 2016 #44
dana_b Mar 2016 #49
redstateblues Mar 2016 #85
Fast Walker 52 Mar 2016 #73
Lans Mar 2016 #46
raging moderate Mar 2016 #53
Name removed Mar 2016 #54
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #57
vdogg Mar 2016 #55
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #58
redstateblues Mar 2016 #84
Gothmog Mar 2016 #56
pdsimdars Mar 2016 #59
thesquanderer Mar 2016 #60
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #61
thesquanderer Mar 2016 #62
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #65
Kittycat Mar 2016 #82
PaulaFarrell Mar 2016 #75
Jitter65 Mar 2016 #67
PaulaFarrell Mar 2016 #78
Nanjeanne Mar 2016 #68
Kittycat Mar 2016 #83
pdsimdars Mar 2016 #70
Doctor_J Mar 2016 #71
Svafa Mar 2016 #76
fredamae Mar 2016 #77
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Mar 2016 #86
UglyGreed Mar 2016 #88

Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:31 PM

1. when did you become a republican? total RW bullshit

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to litlbilly (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:35 PM

5. Raise middle class wages, not middle class taxes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to litlbilly (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:07 PM

29. No new taxes!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:32 PM

2. totally false; even the right wing tax foundation shows the opposite,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:42 PM

11. Provide links.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:35 PM

4. No mention on savings on healthcare. But the word "tax" is an effective boogeyman.

Not to mention the potentially enormous/endless (yet intangible) benefits and efficiencies of what a healthier, better educated, less indebted, infrastructurally reinforced country might bring (along with, you know, a planet that's actually inhabitable)...but, yeah, boo to that plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:36 PM

6. Will Bernie's friends at Fox bring this up? Hmmm...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to jillan (Reply #8)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:41 PM

9. Uhh...the report was just released today.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:46 PM

15. And it has already been debunked. This claim was made month ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #15)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:48 PM

17. Are you hostile to facts?

 

Bernie Sanders isnt an economist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #17)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:05 PM

26. Nor is Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #17)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:06 PM

28. And you are? LOL! (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CoffeeCat (Reply #28)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:23 PM

37. Why yes I am. I have economic degrees and economics is my job.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #37)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:29 PM

42. You should check with your profile

 

It says you are mistaken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2pooped2pop (Reply #42)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:31 PM

45. Which part?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #45)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:36 PM

48. The part that describes your job

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2pooped2pop (Reply #48)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:40 PM

50. Do you know what a UPM is and does?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #50)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:18 PM

64. I do, and I know

 

that you are not an economist.

You are a type of manager - you deal with budgets, resources, and scheduling. In military parlance, you are a glorified quarter master.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM99 (Reply #64)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:27 PM

66. Gee, I sure spend a lot of time dealing with economics for a manager.

 

I have 2 economic degrees and a film degree, they dont just give these jobs to "glorified quarter masters".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #66)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:39 PM

69. But Janey, you are still not an economist.

 

You pretend that you are one. But your position is highly specialized for the film industry. Your economic degrees are still about managing resources, like a quarter master, in a large production environment, in this case film projects.

You are not qualified by your job title to speak to international trade. You are not qualified to speak to federal taxation and government spending. You are not qualified beyond giving an opinion like the rest of us do, some more qualified there than others, to speak on these topics pretending you have authority when you do not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM99 (Reply #69)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:43 PM

72. Federal taxation and govt spending was like day 1 of economics.

 

Trust me, Im overqualified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #72)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:58 PM

74. You are educated.

 

Guess what? So am I and many others. I hold an MBA with a concentration in economics.

But you have been dishonest and suggest that you have the professional experience as well. Saying you are an economist when you are not.

I have no problem with you speaking from educational knowledge. So do I and others. But some here actually are economists. That is their day-job every month and every year. You are not one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 10:30 AM

87. I trust Prof Krugman on this

I trust Prof. Krugman on this http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/?_r=0

On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders ďplanĒ isnít just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice.

To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich ó and single-payer really does save money, whereas thereís no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, itís not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.

Again, as noted by Prof. Krugman this plan does not add up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:42 PM

10. This is a distortion of Bernie's tax plan

But it is unfortunately the kind of stuff the GOP will throw up against Bernie in the GE if Bernie were the nominee, and it will be very effective, especially if coupled with the word "socialist." Hillary also has negative (I'm not one to deny that), but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that Bernie has none. This is one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to JaneyVee (Reply #13)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:48 PM

16. Try this from Bill Clinton's Secretary of Labor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #16)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:49 PM

19. Ma'am, that is about healthcare, we're talking tax policy. READ THE ARTICLE

 

And that was an awful "debunking", America has 330 million people. Denmark has 8 million.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #19)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:56 PM

22. The ONLY tax that middle class Americans will see an increase in is for healthcare.

The rest of the tax increases are on wall street speculation - same thing Hillary proposes.
Closing tax loopholes - also proposed by Hillary.

Here is a simple chart to make it simple for you.
Obviously whoever wrote this has no clue on Bernie's plans to pay for everything he proposes, which is pathetic because it is all at BernieSanders.com

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #22)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:25 PM

39. LOL. That chart is based on #BernieMath

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #39)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:26 PM

40. Oh Janey - I have provided you with the response to that letter already from other economists that

tore apart that op-ed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #40)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:40 PM

51. WHERE?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #40)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:41 PM

52. but that doesn't fit her narrative

to smear Bernie's plans and promote - what - more of the SAME from Hillary. More of what is NOT working for the majority of us. We don't want the status quo anymore. We want the actual change that we were sold years ago but that still hasn't happened. I'll admit that Obama at least tried to do SOME good but we need much, much more now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:43 PM

12. Higher taxes for free stuff will never fly with voters.

If your description is accurate, it's a very bad plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #12)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:08 PM

30. Like higher taxes for free retirement money? Or healthcare when you're old?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #30)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:13 PM

33. I'm not opposed to higher taxes, but I have only one vote.

Bernie's got a hard sell ahead of him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #33)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:22 PM

36. If nothing else, he might be able to defuse some of the distortions about single payer

 

What I like about Sanders campaign, win or lose, is that crucial issues and good Liberal ideas are being brought out into the fresh air again after being AWOL from the Democratic Party and the overall public discourse since Reagan (and the Clintons) .

At the very least it may pave the way for these in the future (hopefully near future)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #36)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:35 PM

47. I agree. Elected Democrats were gravitating much to rightward.

Hillary, I believe, will serve her country and party well during her first term. However, I do see the possibility of a challenge to her second term by an emerging progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #30)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:14 PM

63. Exactly

 

The people all support those things, and those things are all paid for by the people that have more than they need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #12)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:19 PM

35. "If your description is accurate"

It's not. It doesn't discuss the savings that the middle class family will get with Medicare for all. See post #22

It seems like this article is another "vote for Hillary" ad - more than an actual article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:44 PM

14. Good. We need higher taxes.

Just like we had when the country was an economic powerhouse and we were doing great things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:48 PM

18. Doesn't the middle class make out better in this deal net wise factoring in healthcare, college, etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EndElectoral (Reply #18)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:51 PM

20. Are healthcare and college free?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #20)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:01 PM

25. I posted a chart so you could see how Bernie pays for everything just above.

Maybe you should look at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:55 PM

21. I'm probably one of those dead center people.

I'm now on Medicare, but the cost for health insurance when I was 65 was in excess of $8,000 a year (and that was Obamacare - before that it was $12,000). If I had a choice between paying $4,700 in taxes or $8,000 for an insurance policy, I'd giddily pay the taxes. The side benefit is the person preparing my food at a restaurant will also have health coverage and I don't have to worry that he or she can't seek treatment for hepatitis, the flu, TB or a myriad of other communicable diseases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #21)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:00 PM

24. With me it is getting rid of the insurance companies. I care for someone that has complex

medical issues. Everytime I want to take her to a new specialist, I have to get a referral from her doctor so her insurance company will cover it. It takes weeks. In the meantime, I have to make several trips with her to urgent care.

It's insane because it ends up costing the insurance companies more money in the long run.

I wanted single payer as part of the ACA. But the ACA is better than nothing, outrageous deductibles and all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #21)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 04:14 PM

89. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:57 PM

23. OMG!! OMG!! OMG!!

 

I will now have to pay the gov't an extra $1,000 a year vs. the $5,000 I now pay to the health-insurance company!


If the US Taxpayers pay an extra $15 Trillion (assuming that's a correct figure) what would the corresponding amount be if we get the same services he's planning on giving us but instead give it to a private (for-profit) enterprise?

What? $30 Trillion? Because I know they aren't 2x as efficient as the gov't as judged by the 401k fees....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:05 PM

27. I gather the 'BernieBros are Stalinists' meme blew up in y'all's faces?

 

Hillarians are like Wile E Coyote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:09 PM

31. Everyone's Health Care Premiums will go to ZERO, more than making up for any tax increase. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yodermon (Reply #31)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:29 PM

41. Umm..Medicare is an 80/20 payment.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:09 PM

32. Well, that's not good! People aren't going to like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #32)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:21 PM

79. Downballot Dems can't run on it. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #79)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:25 PM

80. It's a recipe for failure. (ie: Super-majorities in both houses of Congress.)

On the plus-side: Bernie WILL BE defeated in the primaries.

Go, Hillary! We love you!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #80)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:26 PM

81. Senate and SCOTUS fall if he is the nominee. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:15 PM

34. The worst part of it? We get absolutely NOTHING in return!

 

Everyone pays more taxes and then Bernie and his cronies are going to set that big pile of cash on fire and roast marshmallows. Taxes are for suckers! Don't they know that we should be drowning the government in the bathtub? That it's our money and not the government's and hard working families know best how to spend their hard earned cash? Ronald Reagan told us many times that CUTTING taxes raises revenue. Apparently some of Sanders' pie in the sky followers just don't understand that.



p.s. This is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:25 PM

38. Hillary fans are so skilled at drive-by talking points that never stick

They throw up their accusations, and all it takes is a few DUers with the truth to completely obliterate their
talking points.

What a joke.

Sander's healthcare proposal will raise our family's annual tax bill $167. I'd complain about that, but wait--we won't be paying $500 for health insurance every month.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CoffeeCat (Reply #38)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:30 PM

43. This article is about tax policy, not healthcare.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:30 PM

44. The last Democrat to run on raising taxes on the middle class was

Walter Mondale- He won exactly ONE state. His home state MN

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstateblues (Reply #44)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:37 PM

49. this is not 1984 anymore

and how did all of those Reagan policies work out for us?? People are willing to try it the Democratic Socialist's way. We HAVE to do it differently because THIS is not working for the majority of people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dana_b (Reply #49)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 08:34 PM

85. I don't care what year it is. No one will win running on raising taxes

on the middle class. It's foolish

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstateblues (Reply #44)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:47 PM

73. was he proposing it as part of single payer healthcare?

 

Because single payer healthcare is an off-setter that gives those taxes a lot less of a bite and actually ends up being a net saver.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:35 PM

46. Doesn't look to bad considering the trade off -

[img][/img]
I don't mind paying a bit extra to be sure that even unemployed I'd be covered.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/4/11161616/bernie-sanders-tax-policy-center

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:46 PM

53. Only if we eventually change to single payer, reducing our medical insurance payments accordingly.

This ploy was once used to fight against government-regulated health insurance, back when Hillary Clinton was trying to get Congress to enact it, in the nineties. Please do not dishonor her efforts back then by using it in this context. When you fight a monster, you must take care that you do not become the monster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #54)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:01 PM

57. My employer pays them. Like 90% of other Americans.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 02:52 PM

55. Any tax increase on the middle class is a nonstarter, period.

Last edited Sat Mar 5, 2016, 06:38 AM - Edit history (1)

1%, go for it. Even a marginal increase on the upper middle would be ok. Middle and lower, you'll lose 49 states. It doesn't matter how much you tell them they'll get for this increase, even if it's small, nobody middle class and under will accept that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vdogg (Reply #55)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:03 PM

58. We need lower taxes for the middle class and poor.

 

Tax the damn rich instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vdogg (Reply #55)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 08:32 PM

84. It's a guaranteed loser

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:01 PM

56. Tax increases worked so well for President Mondale

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:06 PM

59. God, just like Hillary, her supporters are little Hillarys themselves

 

No BS is too far, no disinformation is too low.
We really need to cleanse the system. . . isn't there a political laxative so we can flush all this sh*t out of the system?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:09 PM

60. re: " That would reduce their after-tax incomes by 8.5 percent"

I have a feeling that did not allow for the fact that they would no longer be making mandatory private health insurance payments. That would reduce (or could even possibly eliminate) their reduction in after-tax income... in some case, people will actually come out ahead. A more comprehensive view is required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #60)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:11 PM

61. 90% of people have employer healthcare. And...

 

The ones who dont probably get Medicaid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #61)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:14 PM

62. Even employer healthcare often requires employee contributions.

BTW, your 90% figure is way, way off. It's 49%. Where did you get 90% from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #62)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:21 PM

65. I meant covered, between that and Medicare.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #62)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:36 PM

82. And then we still have to pay to access it via

Deductibles, copays and exclusions. We cap our plan every year. This year we calculated that it would save us to switch to a high deductible HSA. We hit the high deductible on Feb 4th, all pharmaceutical except 2 Dr visits. So yes, I'm happy to pay more in taxes and less in health insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #61)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:12 PM

75. that's incorrect

around 11% of people are uninsured. Around 20% of people who do have insurance pat for it fully themselves. only 43% have employer insurance.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/186047/uninsured-rate-third-quarter.aspx

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:28 PM

67. But they would get so much more in return by way of free college tuition and free healthcare...

 



If you don't go to college because you don't want to or because you have to work to support your parents etc., you miss out!

If you already get subsidized health insurance and pay virtually nothing because you are poor or near poor, you miss out!

And the people in the middle class who are helping family members still get hit with the tax increase although that money may very well have gone to that help.

Just the sound of this tax burden, no matter what might happen to the projected economy will drive people to the GOP. And if we withdraw from the international economy while this is going on, the US consumer will be taking triple whammy. Nothing happens in a vacuum. And the economists who have supported this plan are doing so ASSUMING a 5% growth rate that absolutely will not happen if we foul up our moves on trade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jitter65 (Reply #67)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:19 PM

78. well, yeah , they would

in so many ways.

oh, i was going to try to respond to this post but it hurts my brain...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:32 PM

68. The funniest part about these threads is Democrats pretending to not understand anything about taxes

Notice I said "pretending" because I refuse to believe that real honest to goodness Democrats really do stand beside Republican talking points.

So - why do people have a problem with paying taxes? As Biden once said "it's patriotic to pay taxes". And Republicans laughed. Now, sadly, Democrats do too. Why do Democrats of today use the Republican fear mongering about taxes? OH NO. TAXES ARE GOING TO BE RAISED!!!! We can't have that.

But where is the Democrats outrage that their taxes RIGHT NOW are going to support the Walton family? To subsidize profitable health insurance companies. To subsidize profitable fossil fuel companies. To subsidize companies that keep their profits overseas?

*crickets*

BUT - paying a little bit more in taxes and receiving healthCARE (yes you heard me - CARE, not INSURANCE). Joining the rest of the world and having PAID FAMILY LEAVE. Yes that's right - PAID FAMILY LEAVE - for maternity leave, or an aging parent--something perfectly normal and acceptable in other countries. PUBLIC COLLEGE tuition free. Yes it can be done. It's being done in dozens of countries very successfully. In fact Americans are going to colleges in foreign countries without paying tuition - or in some cases, paying extremely low tuitions. But for some reason, Democrats think this is horrible and we shouldn't be able to do this here in our own country.

This OP is exactly why I no longer want to be associated with the Democratic Party. I haven't a clue what they stand for but until those who claim to be Democrats stop using Republican language and fear tactics to mislead people into thinking paying a little more for taxes but getting healthcare for everyone including the 12 million currently without, tuition free college, family paid leave, Social Security expansion and security and more is HORRIFYING -- I will continue to be one of those Democrats working very very very hard to change the Party from one of Corporatism to something that really reflects the needs of the American people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #68)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:42 PM

83. ==== thank you ====

This kind of talk would have been insane here 8-10 years ago. It's really disheartening. Thank you for sharing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:39 PM

70. Deceptive and Misleading at best . . . .

 

Probably something like this is what this is based on. Bernie is the only candidate who has put out specific proposals and also told how he will fund them. If you look closely, these are mostly taken from the rich and corporations. All things that most of us agree on.
Taxing corporate off shore income, Wall Street speculation tax, etc. look down the list. Most people will be paying less, saving anywhere from $2500 to $5000.

Here are the facts.




Look it over and see if the OP reflects the reality or is merely just deceptive to perpetuate a lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:42 PM

71. My working stiff taxes will go up $100. My healthcare costs will go down by $15,000

 

Count me in.

What do you have against the filthy rich paying taxes like the rest of us? Why do you post limpballs talking points? Are hillarians actually republicans?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:16 PM

76. My taxes will go up a little.

Unlike many, I get very good health insurance from my employer, so for me personally, the increased taxes won't be offset by health insurance savings. I am finished with school and have no debts. However, I still support Sanders' plan. I recognize that most people will benefit from his proposals. I want to live in a world where everyone has access to affordable health care and education.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:16 PM

77. To get a ROI from My Tax

Dollar investment-to make Sure you, me and everybody else has good services, clean water, air, safe infrastructure etc, etc, etc...I. AM. All. In.
Aren't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 08:36 PM

86. I seem to remember the last presidential candidate that ran on raising taxes

Back in 1984. He lost pretty badly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 10:33 AM

88. kick!!!!





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread