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

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 11:58 AM Oct 2015

The Revolution starts with a flat tax

Sanders is perhaps best known in political life for his efforts to champion the middle class, saying that in order to bridge the widening wealth and income inequality gap in America, the country needs a revamped tax policy that forces Wall Street, big corporations, millionaires and billionaires –like Trump – to pay up – and doesn’t impose further taxes on the middle and working class.

However, when pressed by Stephanopoulos about whether the proposed Senate tax legislation he backs, which would use a payroll tax to fund a mandate for 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave from all U.S. employers, Sander confirmed that the bill would require taxing all citizens -– not just the top 1 percent.

"[The payroll tax] would hit everyone –- yeah, it would. But it would mean we would join the rest of the industrialized world and make sure that when a mom has a baby she can in fact stay home with that baby for three months, rather than going back to work at the end of one week," Sanders said.

"We are the ... only major country on earth that doesn't guarantee paid family and medical leave," he added.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-proposed-payroll-tax-hit/story?id=34546554
and http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/18/politics/bernie-sanders-payroll-tax-hike-family-leave/


The tax, as he revealed yesterday, is .2% on everyone, which is flat. (See the CNN article linked above).


My problem with this is not that it involves taxing everyone, but that the tax is regressive. Payroll taxes are flat taxes, regressive, meaning those with the lowest incomes pay the greatest share of their income. The GOP has long been a proponent of flat taxes, whereas Democrats have advocated a return to a more progressive tax structure, as existed before the changes to the tax code during the Reagan and George W. Bush administration.

Can someone explain to me what kind of revolution is funded with flat taxes?
145 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Revolution starts with a flat tax (Original Post) BainsBane Oct 2015 OP
We already use the FICA payroll tax to fund Social Security. The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 2015 #1
Social Security is a retirement program BainsBane Oct 2015 #3
The family leave plan, just like Social Security splits the payment between employee and employeer PoliticAverse Oct 2015 #55
How is Hillary proposing to fund her family leave plan? nt mhatrw Oct 2015 #131
I'd like to see more on his plan. Agschmid Oct 2015 #2
I don't object to the idea it involves a tax increase BainsBane Oct 2015 #4
What's bothersome is superficial resemblance to system-wide libertarian cprise Oct 2015 #40
No, it's a way to spin this as something it completely isn't. Warren DeMontague Oct 2015 #73
I agree that this is not his tax plan. Agschmid Oct 2015 #95
Sanders apparently supports Senator Gillibrand's family leave plan which you can read about here... PoliticAverse Oct 2015 #53
If this is Senator Sanders idea of a revolution... zappaman Oct 2015 #5
.2% is shooting himself in the foot why exactly? TheKentuckian Oct 2015 #83
maybe he catches up to reality and finds that hill2016 Oct 2015 #6
Money grows on trees yeoman6987 Oct 2015 #58
Only if you are the military industrial complex AgingAmerican Oct 2015 #69
Well that's true. yeoman6987 Oct 2015 #74
SOAKING the rich? LOL! "Spoken" like a true merrily Oct 2015 #133
The Ron Paul Revolution is centered around a flat tax. NCTraveler Oct 2015 #7
Yet that is what he proposed yesterday. BainsBane Oct 2015 #8
I didn't see anything in that article saying this would be a flat tax. The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 2015 #9
It's .2 percent on everyone BainsBane Oct 2015 #10
A payroll tax is regressive - it's a tax on weekly or monthly paychecks, not on ALL income. George II Oct 2015 #16
Allow a 1%er to explain things to you... brooklynite Oct 2015 #37
Yes everyone rich or poor, pays income tax (except the very poor or low income)... George II Oct 2015 #39
As you suggest, Sanders is not in favor of replacing the progressive income tax with a flat tax karynnj Oct 2015 #12
Without even doing research, I wouldn't think Sanders is a "flat taxer." NCTraveler Oct 2015 #13
IMO He doesn't. Agschmid Oct 2015 #14
Then why did he propose it yesterday? BainsBane Oct 2015 #20
He didn't AgingAmerican Oct 2015 #71
The first article includes the video of his saying it BainsBane Oct 2015 #110
Combined with large progressive tax increases? cprise Oct 2015 #41
No, Ron does not want large progressive tax increases. Not sure where you got that from. nt. NCTraveler Oct 2015 #43
(sigh) Bernie wants large progressive increases cprise Oct 2015 #45
Ahhh. That's why I didn't get it. NCTraveler Oct 2015 #46
Significant difference... Scootaloo Oct 2015 #79
this is just like the other payroll taxes - SS and Medicare karynnj Oct 2015 #11
Not calling it an income tax BainsBane Oct 2015 #15
How does it "disproportionately" benefit the upper middle class? karynnj Oct 2015 #23
This is how it is regressive BainsBane Oct 2015 #27
That's simplistic rhetoric, and very wrong cprise Oct 2015 #49
Any payroll tax is regressive - it's a tax on a worker's paycheck, not overall "income" even if.... George II Oct 2015 #19
True - but it also is the strength of both SS and Medicare karynnj Oct 2015 #28
^^^ This is the right answer. cprise Oct 2015 #42
That is exactly what would happen. Republicans might pass the payroll tax after complaining about it stevenleser Oct 2015 #50
If you haven't noticed, the Republicans are in big trouble cprise Oct 2015 #52
Doesn't matter. With gerrymandered districts, they are going to control the House through Jan 2023 stevenleser Oct 2015 #57
People changing their minds is not pixie dust. cprise Oct 2015 #64
LMAO, yes, it absolutely is. nt stevenleser Oct 2015 #65
Pour on the cynicism. cprise Oct 2015 #66
No, it's not an income tax, it's worse. RandySF Oct 2015 #106
Where in the quote you cite does it say anything about a flat tax? stopbush Oct 2015 #17
Look at the CNN article BainsBane Oct 2015 #18
Nope. Still not a flat tax. stopbush Oct 2015 #21
Excuse me? BainsBane Oct 2015 #22
You are misusing the term "flat tax" as it is normally used in such a discussion. stopbush Oct 2015 #25
It is a "capped flat tax" BainsBane Oct 2015 #24
Not so. Nowhere in the CNN article you cite does it mention a cap. stopbush Oct 2015 #26
Payroll taxes are capped BainsBane Oct 2015 #35
You're mixing Clinton's opposition to raising caps with Bernie's cprise Oct 2015 #54
It's all they have AgingAmerican Oct 2015 #92
Only Social Security taxes are capped tammywammy Oct 2015 #81
Your horrid concern is noted. 99Forever Oct 2015 #29
Meanwhile, you justify the working poor BainsBane Oct 2015 #31
Oh please. 99Forever Oct 2015 #32
Oh, the irony BainsBane Oct 2015 #33
What irony. 99Forever Oct 2015 #36
Its not redistribution upward. There's no cap. cprise Oct 2015 #51
You still have not shown that this is income redistribution to the wealthy karynnj Oct 2015 #59
It isn't, the same way Social Security isn't "income redistribution to the wealthy". n/t PoliticAverse Oct 2015 #60
I agree completely -- it isn't karynnj Oct 2015 #61
Sanders apparently endorses Senator Gillibrand's plan, which you can read about here... PoliticAverse Oct 2015 #62
Thanks - that is a great write, well written write up karynnj Oct 2015 #63
So which candidate supports a nationwide $15 minimum wage? Warren DeMontague Oct 2015 #75
If its a tax added to the payroll tax gwheezie Oct 2015 #30
Agreed BainsBane Oct 2015 #34
Even if so, the plan raises the cap. cprise Oct 2015 #56
Do you even know what a flat tax is???? kenfrequed Oct 2015 #38
But is that rate a percentage, or an amount? cprise Oct 2015 #44
Whatever, just make sure you get help when you file because you don't really understand taxation. Bluenorthwest Oct 2015 #47
How about paying for it with progressive taxation? BainsBane Oct 2015 #77
You need to take your disagreement to Senator Gillibrand and the other Democratic co-sponsors of her Bluenorthwest Oct 2015 #84
*crickets* beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #107
Oh lordy lu. hifiguy Oct 2015 #48
Wow portlander23 Oct 2015 #67
I understand your point zipplewrath Oct 2015 #68
If it is part of a reform of the system BainsBane Oct 2015 #70
I understand zipplewrath Oct 2015 #85
The GOP proposes replacing our current progressive tax scheme with a flat tax, which is different. Warren DeMontague Oct 2015 #72
Paid family leave is now an evil right-wing scheme! DemocraticWing Oct 2015 #76
I support paid family leave BainsBane Oct 2015 #78
0.2% on 20,000 = $40 = The cost of dinner and a movie Bread and Circus Oct 2015 #80
The problem is that $40 is a hell of a lot of money for someone just getting by BainsBane Oct 2015 #82
Are you aware of the fact that this is not Bernie's platform but part of a current legislative Bluenorthwest Oct 2015 #86
b.s. $40 isnt very much at all over the course of a year its 3 dollars and change or so a month. Bread and Circus Oct 2015 #100
So you're working to eliminate the Social Security payroll tax, which is 37.5 times worse? PoliticAverse Oct 2015 #114
This message was self-deleted by its author ancianita Oct 2015 #87
You might want to take a look at this Cheese Sandwich Oct 2015 #88
Now I see what that was about. Autumn Oct 2015 #89
Looks like team H> is so careless smearing Bernie they are sabotaging the best work of Senate Dems. Cheese Sandwich Oct 2015 #90
Oh noes!!" It's a PAYROLL tax!! One of the worst forms of taxes for poor and middle class workers." Autumn Oct 2015 #93
They assume everyone operates on a totally superficial basis & can't digest more than a sound bite Warren DeMontague Oct 2015 #99
I don't suppose it would enter your mind BainsBane Oct 2015 #116
As smear attempts go this was pretty weak Cheese Sandwich Oct 2015 #137
Sanders: Tax Rate on the wealthiest "will be a damned lot higher" Warren DeMontague Oct 2015 #140
Well that's embarrassing, isn't it? beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #94
Embarrassing just a little. Cheese Sandwich Oct 2015 #97
I'm sure the op will edit the misinformation now, right? beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #98
Not in the least BainsBane Oct 2015 #121
And you're so concerned about the poor and middle class you're supporting Hillary. beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #122
Additionally, the info about Gillibrand BainsBane Oct 2015 #126
Like you "theoretically" supported Bernie before you switched to Hillary how many times? beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #127
In the second thread you linked to, that poster provided this link: BeanMusical Oct 2015 #135
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service jeff47 Oct 2015 #138
Good jury! beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #139
Forget it, she's rolling. Warren DeMontague Oct 2015 #141
LOL! beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #142
Sanders is the candidate of the elites, whereas Hillary represents the "subaltern". Warren DeMontague Oct 2015 #143
White misogynists too. beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #145
Rare footage of BB MannyGoldstein Oct 2015 #103
LOLOLOL!!! beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #109
Hardly BainsBane Oct 2015 #112
Two cents from every ten bucks. Oh the horror. MannyGoldstein Oct 2015 #132
I know that. It's in one of the friggin articles BainsBane Oct 2015 #111
Sure thanks for the libertarian flat tax nonsense, This Primary discussion site is full Todays_Illusion Oct 2015 #91
Yeah, what's libertarian is not my mentioning it BainsBane Oct 2015 #113
Hey, you're not supposed to eat the waxed fruit! ucrdem Oct 2015 #96
The last person I recall advocating a flat tax was Steve Forbes. RandySF Oct 2015 #101
... TDale313 Oct 2015 #102
This is not trashing the man. RandySF Oct 2015 #105
Yes, I know many find it unacceptable to discuss actual policy BainsBane Oct 2015 #117
people keep kicking your thread, so I'm not sure how that makes it "unacceptable". Warren DeMontague Oct 2015 #144
I need every dollar I can take home right now. RandySF Oct 2015 #104
This message was self-deleted by its author F4lconF16 Oct 2015 #108
how dare I question a regressive tax BainsBane Oct 2015 #118
This message was self-deleted by its author F4lconF16 Oct 2015 #120
Oh, wait. My fav from you BainsBane Oct 2015 #123
This message was self-deleted by its author F4lconF16 Oct 2015 #125
Ah, hell, Bains. This isn't worth the sniping. F4lconF16 Oct 2015 #128
Your last response was fine. BainsBane Oct 2015 #129
I was wrong. F4lconF16 Oct 2015 #134
I have lived in a flat tax economy. MADem Oct 2015 #115
Yes, and to be fair this does not propose substituting the income tax for a flat tax BainsBane Oct 2015 #119
It's a payroll tax to fund one thing: lovemydog Oct 2015 #124
How is Hillary proposing to fund her family leave plan? nt mhatrw Oct 2015 #130
With the Clinton Foundation™ of course. BeanMusical Oct 2015 #136

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
3. Social Security is a retirement program
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 12:05 PM
Oct 2015

The idea of everyone paying in 15% is that everyone gets a return. It is theoretically not meant to be a tax, but of course it acts as one. If it is going to be conceived of as a tax, we must acknowledge that it is a tax that places an undue burden on the working poor and most benefits those with the highest incomes. Why would someone who wants to be a champion for the middle class add to that undue burden on those with the lowest incomes? What about the working poor? Why should those who have the least pay more than their fair share?

And if we are to have mandated family leave, why is the mandate not on employers to pay for it?

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
55. The family leave plan, just like Social Security splits the payment between employee and employeer
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 04:11 PM
Oct 2015

it's .2% contributed by each, similar to the way Social Security is 7.5% contributed by each.

Your argument is "a distinction without a difference".

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
2. I'd like to see more on his plan.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 12:03 PM
Oct 2015

I was surprised he didn't answer that question. That being said I do support some level of tax increase as long as the return on investment is appropriate.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
4. I don't object to the idea it involves a tax increase
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 12:07 PM
Oct 2015

It is the regressive nature of it that bothers me. Regressive taxes are conservative. We need to create more progressive indexing, not add to the burden on the working poor.

cprise

(8,445 posts)
40. What's bothersome is superficial resemblance to system-wide libertarian
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 03:07 PM
Oct 2015

...flat taxes. When libertarians propose flat taxes, its part of a roadmap to eliminate progressive taxation.

A tiny .2% tax on top of a plan to GREATLY increase overall taxes on the wealthy isn't troublesome to me.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
73. No, it's a way to spin this as something it completely isn't.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 05:18 PM
Oct 2015

But, then, that's sort of typical when people dont want to argue on the actual merits.

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
95. I agree that this is not his tax plan.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 11:02 PM
Oct 2015

However I would like to see him have better answers than he did on Sunday.

 

hill2016

(1,772 posts)
6. maybe he catches up to reality and finds that
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 12:09 PM
Oct 2015

soaking the rich isn't enough to fund everything he wants.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
7. The Ron Paul Revolution is centered around a flat tax.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 12:09 PM
Oct 2015

Last edited Mon Oct 19, 2015, 03:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Less than a half mile from my office, for the last ten plus years, has been an enormous wood painted sign stating "Ron Paul Revolution: Flat Tax"

I don't think Sanders wants a flat tax.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
9. I didn't see anything in that article saying this would be a flat tax.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 12:21 PM
Oct 2015

It's possible to have a payroll tax that is progressive instead of flat like FICA.

George II

(67,782 posts)
16. A payroll tax is regressive - it's a tax on weekly or monthly paychecks, not on ALL income.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 12:38 PM
Oct 2015

The middle and lower classes rely on their paychecks to make ends meet. Millionaires and billionaires do not - they probably don't even get a "paycheck" or are on any payroll, so they won't pay a penny of this tax.

Even if rich business owners get paychecks, they're nominal amounts that are a small fraction of their overall incomes of bonuses, dividends, interest, etc.

Ronald Reagan relied on payroll taxes (and fees) to make up the difference when he proposed cutting income tax rates.

Its unbelievable that any progressive candidate would propose a payroll tax to pay for any of his/her policies.

brooklynite

(93,879 posts)
37. Allow a 1%er to explain things to you...
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 01:41 PM
Oct 2015

..."millionaire and billionaires" may not rely on their paychecks to make ends meet, but let's be accurate about the financial impact. Most obtain some work-based income, either payroll or profit sharing. If the former, then they pay income tax AND payroll tax. If the latter, they STILL pay income tax (quarterly estimated tax payments, based on the same tax rates, and pay payroll tax independently. Additionally, they will pay income tax on the interest and dividends in their investments, but will pay a seperate tax rate for Capital Gains. Each of these tax rates can be flat, progressive or capped.

Personally, I have no objection to a tax increase on people in our bracket; just don't plan that tax increase on the false assumption that we and others aren't paying taxes now.

George II

(67,782 posts)
39. Yes everyone rich or poor, pays income tax (except the very poor or low income)...
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 02:07 PM
Oct 2015

...and the rich do pay income taxes on income. But this proposed tax is a payroll tax - a tax directly associated with pay/payroll, and will not apply to all forms of income.

Just about every millionaire and billionaire that owns or works for a company has "pay". But for them that pay is only a fraction of their entire income.

For example, a guy owns a company to which he reports every day and works. No doubt he has a salary of say, $1M. On the other hand he has several other forms of income - bonus, dividend, stock options, etc. These could amount to $10M.

Let's say the payroll tax is 1%. For him that would amount to $10,000. Sounds good, but overall that 1% "payroll tax" represents less than one tenth of one percent of his total income.

On the other hand you have some hapless working guy earning only $30,000 and is struggling to get by day to day. He has no investments, little assets, etc. so he earns zero bonuses, zero interest, zero stock options, zero dividends. But he pays the same 1% of his pay for that payroll tax.

So here we have a rich guy who is paying .1% of his income in payroll taxes and a hardworking guy paying 1% of his income - he's paying TEN TIMES the rate on "income" than the rich guy.

Not only that, the hardworking guy spends virtually every penny of after-tax income on rent, electricity, telephone, food, etc., virtually nothing left over at the end of the week/month/year.

Then you have the rich guy making $11M. Unless he's really extravagent (or a fool), he'll have millions of dollars left over after his day to day expenses.

Whereas that $300 payroll tax could go to good use helping the family of the hardworking guy, the $10,000 tax that the rich guy pays probably doesn't make a tiny ripple in his overall lifestyle, much less make a dent in his day to day expenses.

That is why a flat-rate payroll tax is considered regressive - it affects the middle and lower income groups far more than the upper class of people.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
13. Without even doing research, I wouldn't think Sanders is a "flat taxer."
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 12:30 PM
Oct 2015

I would hope not. Not voting for him so I'm not inclined to do much research. That being said, I don't want him promoted as a "flat taxer" if he isn't one. I think most people are unaware of Sanders game plan. That includes Sanders himself. Between Clinton, O'Malley and Sanders, Sanders is putting out the least. Many things we just don't know. Thoughts like this are what happens when we have to piece together ones positions from interviews, stump speeches, and past votes.

cprise

(8,445 posts)
45. (sigh) Bernie wants large progressive increases
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 03:27 PM
Oct 2015

There is a huge difference between flat taxes as a rule, and a tiny "flat" tax on top of progressive income taxes.

I'll enjoy looking into this more, because Bernie has made global warming a priority and there are a lot of carbon tax advocates in his camp. I personally think that government should shift tax burdens away from income and toward pollution.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
46. Ahhh. That's why I didn't get it.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 03:31 PM
Oct 2015

I made the argument that Sanders doesn't want a flat tax. Your reply seemed as if you were countering something. Starting with the word combined makes it an additional or counterpoint. It is my belief that Sanders wants more progressive taxation. Not that he is a flat taxer. Thanks.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
79. Significant difference...
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 05:49 PM
Oct 2015

Ron Paul wanted to do away with all progressive taxation entirely, and replace it with a fixed universal flat rate for everyone.

It's true that flat taxes are a regressive taxation. However, the trick to a flat tax is to bottom-load the programs it pays for, so that you end up with the situation that the people putting the largest percentage of their wealth into the tax, also get the most out of the results.

Also by raising taxes on the progressive scales, regressive taxes can be cut back. Many states' sales taxes are high as a result of "business-friendly" tax loopholes and deregulations creating shortfalls, which are hten shunted onto the general population. Fix those loopholes and deregulations, and the general tax burden can be safely cut back.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
11. this is just like the other payroll taxes - SS and Medicare
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 12:27 PM
Oct 2015

If there is no cap on all of these, the tax would be better. Part of the logic behind SS and Medicare being paid by everyone is to make the payouts ENTITLEMENTS, not "welfare". That philosophy is credited with having made those programs incredibly strong politically.

It is beyond ridiculous to conflate this tax with the income tax -- where Sanders is on record for making the rates higher on the wealthy. Either you are pretty naive or you think others are to make this claim.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
15. Not calling it an income tax
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 12:33 PM
Oct 2015

somehow makes it other than regressive? Hardly. It is yet another tax that disproportionately benefits the upper-middle class, which I suppose makes sense given that is his support base.

You have just gotten angry with me because I object to taxation that disproportionately burdens the working poor. I am really tired of people insisting there is anything just about right-wing positions. I do not believe the role of the poor is to pay for those more affluent, and I will not abandon that concern because some have decided one man's political prospects are what matter.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
23. How does it "disproportionately" benefit the upper middle class?
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 12:51 PM
Oct 2015

If what it does is pay wages during a period where someone is on family leave, the ratio of the amount received to the amount paid would BOTH be based on wages. (To make it favor those with less, all you would need to do is cap the benefit or have the tax on all income - not just wage income. Who it benefits will be determined by the details.)

Has Hillary Clinton spoken of how she would pay for the same thing?

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
27. This is how it is regressive
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 01:00 PM
Oct 2015

Capped flat tax
A capped flat tax is one in which income is taxed at a flat rate until a specified cap amount is reached. For example, in 2014, the United States Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax is 6.2% of gross compensation up to a limit of $117,000 of gross compensation (resulting in a maximum Social Security tax of $7,254).[2] This cap has the effect of turning a nominally flat tax into a regressive tax.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

George explains it well here:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=701381

I don't know the answer about Clinton, but I had presumed when I heard of this family leave proposal that it would be a mandate on employers to pay for family leave for their workers. I'm having trouble understanding why a new tax is required. Perhaps there is something I'm missing, but if there is more taxation necessary, it should be progressive, as part of the income tax. While not as regressive as payroll taxes, our income tax system is of course far less progressive than it was before the reforms of the Reagan and GW Bush administrations. Obama proposed reforming the income tax system to make it more progressive but was unable to get cooperation with Republicans to do so. Many here have insisted Obama is too conservative for their liking, yet Bernie's tax proposal is more conservative.

cprise

(8,445 posts)
49. That's simplistic rhetoric, and very wrong
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 03:53 PM
Oct 2015

"Many here have insisted Obama is too conservative for their liking, yet Bernie's tax proposal is more conservative."

What you are missing is its cap-less, plus all the *increased* income taxes on the wealthy. Bernie is not a part of the flat tax movement. Lol!

You also give an example of tax that is effectively "regressive" -- because of its cap! -- and claim the .2% tax is regressive for the same reason. Msgs 11 and 23 make that clear.

EDIT: Another thing: Clinton doesn't even want to raise the existing cap!!!

Its ridiculous.

George II

(67,782 posts)
19. Any payroll tax is regressive - it's a tax on a worker's paycheck, not overall "income" even if....
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 12:45 PM
Oct 2015

....if it's a graduated tax and not a flat tax.

Does Donald Trump draw a paycheck? I doubt it, but if he does (some business owners give themselves a nominal "salary&quot it's only a tiny fraction of what he has in "income". The bulk of the income of the rich comes in the form of structured bonuses, dividends, stock options, interest. NONE of those would be taxed under a payroll tax.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
28. True - but it also is the strength of both SS and Medicare
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 01:05 PM
Oct 2015

Do you seriously think that they would be as strong if they did not have their source of revenue.

Bernie has argued for both eliminating the cap on the income for which payroll taxes are paid AND he has spoken of taxing investment income as well as wage income. This is not just talk, it is included in detail in a bill he introduced in the Senate.

The Social Security Expansion Act, introduced last week by Sen. Sanders, would kill two birds with one stone.

To shore up Social Security's finances, Sen. Sanders' plan would eliminate the cap on Social Security contributions for earnings above $250,000 a year. It would also expand the system's revenue base to include high-income households' unearned income. Together, these measures would simply ensure that high-income households contribute to Social Security on all of their income at the same rate as the typical worker does.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-veghte/sen-sanders-bold-plan-to_b_6879582.html

Is Clinton on record on:
a) eliminating the cap

b) having the payroll taxes apply to all types of income.

cprise

(8,445 posts)
42. ^^^ This is the right answer.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 03:14 PM
Oct 2015

Anyone who thinks Sanders would support this *without* getting increased income taxes from the rich is being myopic.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
50. That is exactly what would happen. Republicans might pass the payroll tax after complaining about it
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 03:57 PM
Oct 2015

I give it a 15-20% chance, but Bernie would have zero chance of getting progressive tax increases through the Republican House.

cprise

(8,445 posts)
52. If you haven't noticed, the Republicans are in big trouble
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 04:06 PM
Oct 2015

The precondition for Bernie's plans is political revolution. He surely is smart enough to abide by that condition.

The Third Way tactic of saying "Republicans!!!" like saying "Squirrel!!!" is not going to work. Bernie's candidacy is banking on a sea change and you should be able to recognize that its happening.

And I'll grant it may not be in time for the election. But a Sanders presidency + Republican congressional majority is an absurdly unlikely outcome.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
57. Doesn't matter. With gerrymandered districts, they are going to control the House through Jan 2023
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 04:16 PM
Oct 2015

We've already had one election with these districts where the Democratic candidates as a whole got more votes (2012) and it still resulted in a massive Republican advantage in the House.

Face it, no unicorns or magical pixie dust is going to change the realities here.

cprise

(8,445 posts)
64. People changing their minds is not pixie dust.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 04:50 PM
Oct 2015

It happened in 2008 but Market Dems squandered their chance and ran like weasels from Obama (and voters!) in 2014.

I enjoy watching Clinton supporters defend the status quo, and their amnesia over "two for the price of one" Clinton era.

And if YOU can say "Republicans will do X" then I can credibly say "Bernie will do Y"... at the very least.


Clinton's protecting the current cap and shallow income tax curve is NOT a good plan, and you're making excuses for Clinton's crappy 1990s bipartisanship.

RandySF

(57,661 posts)
106. No, it's not an income tax, it's worse.
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 12:06 AM
Oct 2015

A payroll tax hits the middle and working classes hardest.

stopbush

(24,378 posts)
21. Nope. Still not a flat tax.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 12:46 PM
Oct 2015

Flat taxes apply to marginal rates, and this has nothing to do with marginal rates.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
22. Excuse me?
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 12:49 PM
Oct 2015

It's a payroll tax. It's taxes payroll, not all income. It is regressive in that it disproportionately burdens low wage workers. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=701381
It is taxing the working poor for the benefit of those who earn more money. It's income redistribution upward.

stopbush

(24,378 posts)
25. You are misusing the term "flat tax" as it is normally used in such a discussion.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 12:53 PM
Oct 2015

Major categories
Flat tax proposals differ in how the subject of the tax is defined.

True flat rate income tax
A true flat rate tax is a system of taxation where one tax rate is applied to all personal income with no deductions.

Marginal flat tax
Where deductions are allowed, a 'flat tax' is a progressive tax with the special characteristic that, above the maximum deduction, the marginal rate on all further income is constant. Such a tax is said to be marginally flat above that point. The difference between a true flat tax and a marginally flat tax can be reconciled by recognizing that the latter simply excludes certain types of income from being defined as taxable income; hence, both kinds of tax are flat on taxable income.

Flat tax with limited deductions
Modified flat taxes have been proposed which would allow deductions for a very few items, while still eliminating the vast majority of existing deductions. Charitable deductions and home mortgage interest are the most discussed examples of deductions that would be retained, as these deductions are popular with voters and are often used. Another common theme is a single, large, fixed deduction. This large fixed deduction would compensate for the elimination of various existing deductions and would simplify taxes, having the side-effect that many (mostly low income) households will not have to file tax returns.

Hall–Rabushka flat tax
Main article: Hall–Rabushka flat tax
Designed by economists at the Hoover Institution, Hall–Rabushka is a flat tax on consumption.[1] Principally, Hall–Rabushka accomplishes a consumption tax effect by taxing income and then excluding investment. Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka have consulted extensively in designing the flat tax systems in Eastern Europe.

Negative income tax
Main article: Negative income tax
The negative income tax (NIT), which Milton Friedman proposed in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, is a type of flat tax. The basic idea is the same as a flat tax with personal deductions, except that when deductions exceed income, the taxable income is allowed to become negative rather than being set to zero. The flat tax rate is then applied to the resulting "negative income," resulting in a "negative income tax" that the government would owe to the household -- unlike the usual "positive" income tax, which the household owes the government.

For example, let the flat rate be 20%, and let the deductions be $20,000 per adult and $7,000 per dependent. Under such a system, a family of four making $54,000 a year would owe no tax. A family of four making $74,000 a year would owe tax amounting to 0.20 × (74,000 ? 54,000) = $4,000, as would be the case under a flat tax system with deductions. Families of four earning less than $54,000 per year, however, would experience a "negative" amount of tax (that is, the family would receive money from the government instead of paying to the government). For example, if the family earned $34,000 a year, it would receive a check for $4,000. The NIT is intended to replace not just the USA's income tax, but also many benefits low income American households receive, such as food stamps and Medicaid. The NIT is designed to avoid the welfare trap—effective high marginal tax rates arising from the rules reducing benefits as market income rises. An objection to the NIT is that it is welfare without a work requirement. Those who would owe negative tax would be receiving a form of welfare without having to make an effort to obtain employment. Another objection is that the NIT subsidizes industries employing low cost labor, but this objection can also be made against current systems of benefits for the working poor.

Capped flat tax
A capped flat tax is one in which income is taxed at a flat rate until a specified cap amount is reached. For example, in 2014, the United States Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax is 6.2% of gross compensation up to a limit of $117,000 of gross compensation (resulting in a maximum Social Security tax of $7,254).[2] This cap has the effect of turning a nominally flat tax into a regressive tax.[3]

Source: Wikipedia

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
24. It is a "capped flat tax"
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 12:52 PM
Oct 2015
Capped flat tax
A capped flat tax is one in which income is taxed at a flat rate until a specified cap amount is reached. For example, in 2014, the United States Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax is 6.2% of gross compensation up to a limit of $117,000 of gross compensation (resulting in a maximum Social Security tax of $7,254).[2] This cap has the effect of turning a nominally flat tax into a regressive tax.[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

stopbush

(24,378 posts)
26. Not so. Nowhere in the CNN article you cite does it mention a cap.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 12:58 PM
Oct 2015

Bernie is proposing a .02% tax. That would apply to all of the income earned by a billionaire, not only to the first $117k earned.

Maybe I'm missing something in the article.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
35. Payroll taxes are capped
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 01:31 PM
Oct 2015

Surely you know that? It is added to the existing payroll tax, which goes up to approximately $114k in payroll, not general income but payroll. Huge amounts of investment income and "carried interest" that people in the finance industry claim are excluded from payroll taxes.

tammywammy

(26,582 posts)
81. Only Social Security taxes are capped
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 07:53 PM
Oct 2015

Medicare (the other part of FICA) is not capped. With Social Security at 6.2% and Medicare at 1.45% an additional 0.2% increase to pay for paid leave is negligible.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
29. Your horrid concern is noted.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 01:06 PM
Oct 2015

BTW:

That crippling tax load comes to 20 cents for every $100 earned.

Oh the inhumanity.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
31. Meanwhile, you justify the working poor
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 01:09 PM
Oct 2015

paying to support the more affluent, income redistribution upward. I don't find that funny at all, and I don't believe the wealthy should be exempt from such taxes, which they are under Sanders proposal.

When people are poor, 20 cents means far more to them. On one paycheck it could comprise a bus fare. I don't know if you've ever had to search for change to pay for the bus or wait to ask for someone's transfer when they got off the bus because you didn't have the fare yourself. That's the lot of the working poor and why a so-called socialist should endorse a proposal that makes that harder for them, I have no idea.

I find it fascinating that people who assailed Obama for being too conservative are willing to embrace conservative, regressive tax schemes because what really matters is one man's political prospects. I wonder if there is anything he could propose you all wouldn't defend?
We've already heard about how drones are suddenly fine, immunity for gun corporations necessary, and the mentally ill responsible for gun violence.

Sorry, I'm not a right-winger, and I don't support regressive taxation. I will hold that position regardless of who runs for president because I care about issues, not personalities.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
36. What irony.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 01:40 PM
Oct 2015

ALL income get taxed for this. Low earners pay MUCH LESS and get MORE BENEFIT. Math doesn't seem to be your long suit.

cprise

(8,445 posts)
51. Its not redistribution upward. There's no cap.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 03:59 PM
Oct 2015

You're playing rhetorical games, and your fav. Clinton is protecting the SSI cap.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
59. You still have not shown that this is income redistribution to the wealthy
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 04:30 PM
Oct 2015

To show that you would need to show that wealthy people will receive more in benefits than they put in. In fact, it would be very easy to design this so it is NOT the case. The easiest way is to fix the amount of the benefit at the amount you otherwise earn up to some maximum. Then if everyone has an equal chance of taking advantage of it, then in fact there would be redistribution favoring everyone below that maximum benefit.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
61. I agree completely -- it isn't
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 04:37 PM
Oct 2015

In addition, it would be sensible to wait for the plan, but Bernie has long been in favor of raising or eliminating the cap -- and adding in non wage income. Funny that she forgets that HRC in 2007 rejected raising the cap at all - calling it a tax increase.

gwheezie

(3,580 posts)
30. If its a tax added to the payroll tax
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 01:07 PM
Oct 2015

Then it is regressive. I agree, he needs to find another way to pay for this.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
34. Agreed
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 01:29 PM
Oct 2015

1) employers should pay for leave
2) I need to hear what costs couldn't be covered by employers
3) any of those costs should be paid for by income taxes.

kenfrequed

(7,865 posts)
38. Do you even know what a flat tax is????
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 01:45 PM
Oct 2015

A tax increase does not equal a flat tax!

For the love of gods this is about the most absurd thing I have read today.


A flat tax is when everyone pays the exact same rate.

An across the board increase in all tax brackets does not equal a flat tax unless all brakets pay the same rate!

I seriously feel as though I must have been taking crazy pills after I read this!

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
47. Whatever, just make sure you get help when you file because you don't really understand taxation.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 03:31 PM
Oct 2015

I mean aside from the fact that we are discussing how to pay for family leave and you call it 'funding a revolution with flat taxes' which is just unhinged bullshit rhetoric that treats family leave as some sort of worthless objective because you need a talking point today. This tax is to pay for workers to have time off when children are born, something the entire world provides. That's not a revolution, that's common decency. To exploit that social need in this way is naff.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
77. How about paying for it with progressive taxation?
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 05:36 PM
Oct 2015

How about telling him that you support family leave but don't think it should be funded through a regressive tax? Why isn't it possible for so-called progressives to send a message to Sanders that they actually expect a fair tax system, rather than increasingly burdening the lowest incomes? You call it "exploitation." I disagree. I do not believe in furthering income redistribution upward, which is exactly what that proposal does.

I'm sorry you consider concern about not disproportionately burdening the working poor for the benefit of the upper-middle class to be "unhinged bullshit rhetoric." I wonder if there is anything people wouldn't defend if Sanders suggests it: scapegoating the mentally ill for gun violence, a position suddenly declared genius because Sanders proposes it, even though the gun lobby has been making that same argument for years now; immunity for the corporate gun industry, necessary; $800 billion in corporate Welfare for Lockheed-Martin for the F-37 (well, that little detail is conveniently ignored); and an announcement to continue the same drone program that makes Obama a war criminal is okay under Sanders, because supposedly he will magically be able to avoid civilian casualties.

I make no apologies for being a leftist or a Democrat, and I will never contort myself to support conservative taxes or other objectionable policies because I decide what matters is one person's political prospects. I don't do the great man worldview; and I am not a person who will argue the exact opposite of a position I took 6 months ago in order to promote a politician.

My comment about funding the revolution is in part a comment on the absurdity of his use of that term for an election.

You bet I'm going to raise disagreements. That is my right and responsibility as a citizen. You can hurl insults from now until the election,; it only reflects on you.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
84. You need to take your disagreement to Senator Gillibrand and the other Democratic co-sponsors of her
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 08:57 PM
Oct 2015

bill. This is not 'Bernie's Flat Tax' Bains, this is a piece of currently proposed legislation, introduced in the Senate by Gillibrand, co-sponsored by my own Jeff Merkley, Elizabeth Warren, Booker and about 20 Senators in total, the list is here:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/786/cosponsors

Gillibrand's page on the Act:
http://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/issues/paid-family-medical-leave


What confounds me, Bains is that many Democrats on your side of things do not recognize the current Democratic agenda when they see it. You are here howling about a Democratic bill and calling it 'the great man's plan' and all of that. It's Kirstin Gillibrand's plan. It's not part of Bernie's platform, it is our own Party's current business.

Do you reject all Democratic policy if Sanders joins in? If it is just this one, you should tell him, Gillibrand, Franken, Tammy Baldwin, Sherrod Brown, and the rest of that scurvy lot pushing what you call "conservative taxes or other objectionable policies" what you think of them and their policy. I look forward to hearing what Gillibrand says, also Warren and Franken. And Bernie of course. But I will be looking for your continued efforts to stop this and your reports about all those Senators doing this terrible thing.....

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
107. *crickets*
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 12:07 AM
Oct 2015

I was expecting a scathing op in GD to rally DUers to this ever so important cause.

I wonder what happened?

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
68. I understand your point
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 05:06 PM
Oct 2015

I too object to these added taxes that don't really consider the actual wealth or total income of the tax payer. It was one of my many complaints about the ACA was that it included features that were a tad on the regressive side.

However, what you have here is merely a "modification" of the existing tax structure. I don't think you can expect that he "fix" all short comings in a single proposal. The change is small and really we need a separate "fix" to payroll taxes and FICA in general. It's long past time that we allow people to avoid certain taxes because their "income" is in dividends instead of a paycheck. When he gets around to talking about that fix, we can demand that it include this tax modification as well.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
70. If it is part of a reform of the system
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 05:12 PM
Oct 2015

then I have no problem with it. I don't object to paying more in taxes. What I object to is a regressive taxation.

Yesterday Sanders mentioned only the addition to pay for family leave, not any reform of the payroll tax. I definitely support family leave, but it should be paid through progressive taxation.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
85. I understand
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 09:04 PM
Oct 2015

It's the old "enemy of good" problem. You want perfect solutions to complex problems. I'm more than willing to accept some status quo with my improvements. If he was CREATING the payroll tax, I'd object strenuously. But since he's just leveraging it, especially in a relatively small way, I can accept that (especially in a proposal instead of an actual piece of legislation). One would ultimately hope he would attempt to modify/improve the payroll tax situation as well.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
72. The GOP proposes replacing our current progressive tax scheme with a flat tax, which is different.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 05:15 PM
Oct 2015

Proposing an across the board tax to specifically fund Family leave in addition to the taxation we already have, is not the same thing.

Surely you understand that.

DemocraticWing

(1,290 posts)
76. Paid family leave is now an evil right-wing scheme!
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 05:30 PM
Oct 2015

Just like social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance, and worker's comp.

Anyway this is how parental leave is structured in general, including at the state level. It's a generally Democratic principle that these collective benefits can be covered through small payroll taxes, everybody pays in a little bit kind of like insurance, and then draws out the benefits when they need them.

Obviously you're kneecapping Democratic platform positions because you think the socialist is too conservative, which is why surely you would like to post an OP about the tragically right-wing policies of literally every other Democratic politician ever.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
78. I support paid family leave
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 05:47 PM
Oct 2015

but I do not support paying for it through a regressive tax.

He's not a socialist. No socialist would disproportionately tax the working poor to benefit upper incomes. His transaction tax also taxes pension and other retirement funds, ostensibly to pay for college for everyone but in reality children growing up in poor communities are not prepared for college by age 18 because of low quality schools and the kind of hurdles that children who grow up in concentrated poverty encounter. They need intervention far earlier in order to benefit from publicly funded post-secondary education.

I believe employers should pay for their employees leave. If additional revenues are required, it should be done through progressive taxation, either the income tax or, if there is a corresponding reform of the payroll tax to make it progressive, that would be fine.

Bread and Circus

(9,454 posts)
80. 0.2% on 20,000 = $40 = The cost of dinner and a movie
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 07:23 PM
Oct 2015

So even at the low end of the scale that is negligible cinsidering what you get out of it = 12 weeks paid time off. So a single mom working a 10 dollar an hour job would have to pay 40 bucks for 12 weeks paid leave... assuming she just gave birth... sounds not too bad to me.

Such a low tax rate is negligible even to low income people. Yes I mean that.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
82. The problem is that $40 is a hell of a lot of money for someone just getting by
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 08:09 PM
Oct 2015

I don't think many realize what it is like to have so little. When you're that poor, you can't afford dinner and a movie. You can barely scrape together money for bus fare and food. You make $50 stretch for a month's worth of food. You wait at the bus stop for people to get off and ask them for a transfer so you can take the bus. There is a whole network of poor people helping each other out with transfers for bus fare. Dinner and a movie. It's incredible to me that you can say such a thing.

I support family leave. But why should the working poor pay a disproportionate share of the taxes for it? They shouldn't. Your very comment reveals how different that amount of money is to you than the working poor.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
86. Are you aware of the fact that this is not Bernie's platform but part of a current legislative
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 09:04 PM
Oct 2015

proposal introduced in the Senate by Gillibrand, co-sponsored by about 20 other Senators, one of whom is Sanders but also Baldwin and Sherrod Brown, Franken and Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren and Jeff Merkley.....
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/786/cosponsors

DeLaurio introduced the House version.

Gillibrand' page about the Family Act, go there to give her a piece of your mind about Bernie's Flat Tax, but call it the Family Act because that's what it is.....

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/report/2013/12/12/81037/the-family-act-facts-and-frequently-asked-questions/

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
114. So you're working to eliminate the Social Security payroll tax, which is 37.5 times worse?
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:30 AM
Oct 2015

(7.5%/.2%) ? And don't forget disability and unemployment insurance which is also a payroll tax.

Response to BainsBane (Original post)

 

Cheese Sandwich

(9,086 posts)
90. Looks like team H> is so careless smearing Bernie they are sabotaging the best work of Senate Dems.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 10:52 PM
Oct 2015


That's the problem with full smear mode.

Autumn

(44,765 posts)
93. Oh noes!!" It's a PAYROLL tax!! One of the worst forms of taxes for poor and middle class workers."
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 10:58 PM
Oct 2015

and "Luckily he isn't going to get elected." I'm still laughing over those.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
99. They assume everyone operates on a totally superficial basis & can't digest more than a sound bite
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 11:26 PM
Oct 2015

I guess that's how it goes, when you want to empower communities and families because the middle class needs a champion.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
116. I don't suppose it would enter your mind
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:38 AM
Oct 2015

that I might actually care about fair taxation and inequality, other than the great and noble struggle of the upper 20% against the upper 1%? I don't do the politics of personality. I knew it was Gillibrand's legislation. The initial press coverage of Bernie pointing to it as his solution said as much. It is still a regressive tax. It still disproportionately burdens the poor for the benefit of those with higher incomes. His transaction tax also does nothing to deal with the rampant inequality in K-12 schools and living conditions that make it impossible for many poor kids to eligible for college by age 18. That policy most benefits those who currently are ineligible for financial aid for college, and that is the upper middle class.

The difference with Bernie pointing to it is that he claims to be a socialist leading a revolution, when his policies show no evidence of it. His entire platform is theoretical. You'd think it would be possible for him to theorize progressive taxation.

It's interesting that you all assume that the fact Gillibrand sponsored the legislation changes my opinion. It seems like you all are so used to contorting your views to conform to particular politicians that it wouldn't occur to you than someone else wouldn't.

If it's the only way to get family leave, I would support it. However, I believe the greatest problems facing the country are those of the poor, not the $80k year a plus crowd who is Bernie's primary support base. If some of them would give up some of their 6 figure incomes to fund a first-class k-12 educational system in poor communities, I might believe they care about inequality, but so far I haven't seen much evidence that their concerns extend beyond their own class interests.

 

Cheese Sandwich

(9,086 posts)
137. As smear attempts go this was pretty weak
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 02:31 PM
Oct 2015

It's a regressive tax right? It's worse than a flat tax. That's what mostly funds Social Security too. It sucks but that's what we have to work with. That's what history has left us. But you know which candidate wants to make it less regressive: Bernie Sanders because he wants to lift the taxable income cap.


Your OP is disingenuous in so many ways.

1) Not too many people will even notice a .2% payroll tax. That's 20 cents on a hundred dollars. That's totally worth it for the benefits that it would be targeted for.

2) That is not the "revolutionary" piece of what sanders is talking about. The revolutionary thing is he's talking about mobilizing a mass movement. Personally I don't see how that happens but it's just unfair to act like anyone is claiming the payroll tax is the start revolution. That's a big ol' straw person.

3) It ignores that Sanders actually wants to make the tax less regressive by lifting the cap on taxable income.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
121. Not in the least
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:56 AM
Oct 2015

The fact it is Gillibrand's legislation is mentioned in the articles? How do you suppose I didn't know. And it's interesting how certain you are that changes everything. Evidently you all are so used to contorting your own views around individual politicians that you can't imagine that anyone might care about issues.

I believe Bernie even mentioned Gillibrand to George S. It's not a revelation. But if Bernie drops it, you all can come out against it. Just like drones are a war crime when Obama uses them but perfectly okay when Bernie says he'll continue them.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
122. And you're so concerned about the poor and middle class you're supporting Hillary.
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 02:00 AM
Oct 2015

Who doesn't support raising the federal minimum wage to $15/hr.

And I suppose you'll be posting a screed against this oppressive legislation in GD now?

ALERT THE DU! BAINSBANE IS OUTRAGED ABOUT ... SOMETHING OR OTHER BERNIE DID AGAIN!

Hillaryous!


BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
126. Additionally, the info about Gillibrand
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 02:27 AM
Oct 2015

is provided in at least one of the articles above, which if you had actually read you would know.


If $15 can get by congress, I'm all for it. I think the important point is that it be tied to increases in the cost of living, as we have done in my state, so we don't have to wait another 20 years to get it by congress. Actually, I'd like to see a uniform wage of about $50k a year for every family, no more, no less. Somehow I don't think Bernie's support base would like that idea so much.

We are talking theoretically here, since all of his proposals are theoretical. Seems to me he might have just as easily theorized a progressive system of taxation to pay for family leave, which I agree is a very important idea.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
127. Like you "theoretically" supported Bernie before you switched to Hillary how many times?
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 02:37 AM
Oct 2015
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11071699

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026797259



I don't know why you think I would believe anything you say at this point BB.

You should give it a rest, it must be exhausting trying to maintain that level of outrage against Bernie and his supporters all the time.

I know I'm tired of it.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
138. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 04:44 PM
Oct 2015

On Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:36 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Like you "theoretically" supported Bernie before you switched to Hillary how many times?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=704120

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is just a personal attack and has nothing to do with the OP. BMUS uses this tactic constantly, and it's just flamebait. What someone thought about Bernie in June is just not relevant and is a bogus smear trying to shut people up.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:45 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerts are usually the other way, as I know from experience, but this one doesnt rise to the level of a hide for me.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: How DARE a poster point out another poster's hypocrisy!!!!
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
142. LOL!
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 05:37 PM
Oct 2015

She always does that, reminds me of what Stephen Colbert said about Bush at the Correspondents dinner:

“The greatest thing about this man is he’s steady. You know where he stands,” Colbert said. “He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change; this man’s beliefs never will.”

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
143. Sanders is the candidate of the elites, whereas Hillary represents the "subaltern".
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 05:57 PM
Oct 2015

because Volvos, or something.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
112. Hardly
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:27 AM
Oct 2015

That information is clear from the press coverage of Sanders statement yesterday. Now, I understand for many of you what matters is not the policy but the politician associated with it. I do not subscribe to that view. That Bernie got the idea from Gillibrand doesn't make it any less regressive. A regressive tax is a regressive tax, and someone claiming to be a socialist leading a revolution should support lessening the burden on the working poor, not increasingly it. I'm tired of hearing all about the middle class, which increasingly seems to be the upper middle class. What kind of socialist taxes public pension plans and retirement funds to pay for the education of the wealthy, or increases regressive taxation that disproportionately burdens the poor to pay for family leave of those with far greater means?

I'll go along with it as soon as Sanders supporters give up some of their 6 figure incomes to build a first class k-12 educational system in poor communities. Until that happens, it's just more income redistribution upward.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
132. Two cents from every ten bucks. Oh the horror.
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 07:05 AM
Oct 2015

For paid leave for new moms.

Won't someone think of the children?

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
111. I know that. It's in one of the friggin articles
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:20 AM
Oct 2015

that he pointed to Gillibrand's legislation as the way he would fund family leave. That doesn't make it any less regressive. He's going around claiming to lead a revolution and be a socialist, while proposing policies that show absolutely no indication of either.

Todays_Illusion

(1,209 posts)
91. Sure thanks for the libertarian flat tax nonsense, This Primary discussion site is full
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 10:52 PM
Oct 2015

of libertarian nonsense today. Way to go ThirdWayLeftLibertarianUnderground.com

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
113. Yeah, what's libertarian is not my mentioning it
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:29 AM
Oct 2015

but that it's proposed in the first place. I get you might not want actual policy discussed, but voters are going to do so. That is what civic engagement is about.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
96. Hey, you're not supposed to eat the waxed fruit!
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 11:04 PM
Oct 2015

Strictly for show. And that's been my impression of Sanders' storied socialism since 1992.

p.s. Jerry Brown ran for president on a flat tax platform in 1988 and was widely panned for the same reason. Thankfully he's never returned to it.

TDale313

(7,820 posts)
102. ...
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 11:57 PM
Oct 2015


So much energy being spent to trash a good man with good, liberal ideas. Every day a new, desperate attack.

RandySF

(57,661 posts)
105. This is not trashing the man.
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 12:03 AM
Oct 2015

This is calling an idea into question. Good grief is it ok to talk about issues?

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
117. Yes, I know many find it unacceptable to discuss actual policy
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:47 AM
Oct 2015

or voting records, but the interests of the public demand it. You care about Bernie Sanders. I care about the country. I do not elevate one man above the citizenry. In fact, the very notion that I am expected to show absolute obedience to authority, to one great man, is entirely off putting and runs against any notion of civic engagement, leftism, or liberalism.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
144. people keep kicking your thread, so I'm not sure how that makes it "unacceptable".
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 06:00 PM
Oct 2015

What I find disingenuous (not the same thing, of course, as "unacceptable&quot is your attempt to portray a single proposal for a particular specific funding measure for a single particular benefit, as an across-the-board ideological affinity to right-libertarian and/or conservative republican approaches to taxation in general.

RandySF

(57,661 posts)
104. I need every dollar I can take home right now.
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 12:00 AM
Oct 2015

An additional .02 across the board payroll will hurt the the working and middle class more than the rich. Why in the world do we need tot ax everyone in order to require that employers provide paid leave?

Response to BainsBane (Original post)

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
118. how dare I question a regressive tax
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:50 AM
Oct 2015

when all that matters is the political fortunes of one great man. Yeah, that's really leftist. The career of one above the needs of the many. That's really leftist.

Response to BainsBane (Reply #118)

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
123. Oh, wait. My fav from you
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 02:00 AM
Oct 2015

Is advocating for Obama to be prosecuted for war crimes for using drones while insisting that Bernie, who has said he will continue the drone program, is the only salvation for the nation. I guess that's what real leftists do. Funny how it has absolutely nothing to with principle or peace and everything to do with one man's political prospects.

------

My post is about the regressive tax proposed by Gillibrand and endorsed by Sanders as the way to pay for family leave. It makes no other point, other than an implicit critique of what I see as an opportunistic use of the term revolution as a campaign slogan.

Response to BainsBane (Reply #123)

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
129. Your last response was fine.
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 02:44 AM
Oct 2015

I was just writing this (read it or not, as you like): You're entitled to inconsistencies and your own voting choices. What is not acceptable is telling me I'm not a leftist because I don't support a figure far too many have imbued with Messianic qualities. There is little I despise more than the great man view of the world, which is by its nature profoundly inegalitarian.

F4lconF16

(3,747 posts)
134. I was wrong.
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 09:48 AM
Oct 2015

It took me a while to get it. I was wrong, and I apologize, though I'm not going to pretend I think my comments were entirely undeserved.

The great man view of the world--I get that now.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
115. I have lived in a flat tax economy.
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:32 AM
Oct 2015

My view? The poor get screwed. Whatever you're buying, expect to pay half as much again for it. This doesn't bother the rich, but the lower middle class quickly move from aspirational to serfish forelock tuggers.

And look for an uptick in black marketing and hijacking. Shit that fell off the truck becomes VERY popular in places like that.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
119. Yes, and to be fair this does not propose substituting the income tax for a flat tax
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:52 AM
Oct 2015

but it builds upon the already regressive payroll tax. And of course it disproportionately burdens the poor. A mathematical calculation showing the percentage of income the tax taxes from the working poor vs. the upper-middle class and the wealthy shows as much.

lovemydog

(11,833 posts)
124. It's a payroll tax to fund one thing:
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 02:06 AM
Oct 2015

paid family and medical leave. Bear in mind he wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. A pure flat tax of the like that right wing libertarians propose is completely different. It's something like a straight flat tax on all income. With a much lower rate than currently exists for the top tier. I usually hear it proposed at around 10%. Another tax that is more regressive is a value added tax, which even non-working people must pay for whenever they purchase goods.

Sanders' full taxation policy is more progressive than those of other candidates. It includes raising the capital gains tax, raising income taxes on the top 2%, and funding public college tuition with a tax on Wall Street speculation.

In my view, his tax policy as a whole is not in the least regressive nor does it indicate an overall flat tax in the slightest. Perhaps some would call this particular tax regressive but I'm not sure I agree with that. The same people who pay that minimal tax would benefit greatly by having the service associated with it: paid family and medical leave.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The Revolution starts wit...