2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Revolution starts with a flat tax
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?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,280 posts)How would this be any different?
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)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)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".
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)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)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)...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)But, then, that's sort of typical when people dont want to argue on the actual merits.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)However I would like to see him have better answers than he did on Sunday.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)zappaman
(20,605 posts)He's already shot himself in the foot.
TheKentuckian
(24,949 posts)hill2016
(1,772 posts)soaking the rich isn't enough to fund everything he wants.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)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.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,280 posts)It's possible to have a payroll tax that is progressive instead of flat like FICA.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)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)..."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)...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.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)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.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And nowhere in the articles you posted does it say he did.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)Good lord.
cprise
(8,445 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)"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)....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" 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)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)Anyone who thinks Sanders would support this *without* getting increased income taxes from the rich is being myopic.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)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)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)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)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.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)RandySF
(57,661 posts)A payroll tax hits the middle and working classes hardest.
stopbush
(24,378 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)It's .2 percent on everyone. That is flat.
stopbush
(24,378 posts)Flat taxes apply to marginal rates, and this has nothing to do with marginal rates.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)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)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.
HallRabushka flat tax
Main article: HallRabushka flat tax
Designed by economists at the Hoover Institution, HallRabushka is a flat tax on consumption.[1] Principally, HallRabushka 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 trapeffective 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)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)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)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.
cprise
(8,445 posts)tax proposal.
That's bunk.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Their 'opposition' to him is nothing more than a shell game.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)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)BTW:
That crippling tax load comes to 20 cents for every $100 earned.
Oh the inhumanity.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)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)Spare me the perfect is the enemy of the VERY VERY GOOD horseshit.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)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)You're playing rhetorical games, and your fav. Clinton is protecting the SSI cap.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)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.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)karynnj
(59,475 posts)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.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)karynnj
(59,475 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)gwheezie
(3,580 posts)Then it is regressive. I agree, he needs to find another way to pay for this.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)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.
cprise
(8,445 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)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!
cprise
(8,445 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)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)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)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)I was expecting a scathing op in GD to rally DUers to this ever so important cause.
I wonder what happened?
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)portlander23
(2,078 posts)Clint Eastwood isn't the only person debating empty chairs.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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/
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)(7.5%/.2%) ? And don't forget disability and unemployment insurance which is also a payroll tax.
Response to BainsBane (Original post)
ancianita This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Autumn
(44,765 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)That's the problem with full smear mode.
Autumn
(44,765 posts)and "Luckily he isn't going to get elected." I'm still laughing over those.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)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)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)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.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bluenorthwest is a DU treasure!
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Yeah that was a great find.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)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)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)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)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.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)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)Thanks for posting the results, jeff.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)She always does that, reminds me of what Stephen Colbert said about Bush at the Correspondents dinner:
The greatest thing about this man is hes 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 mans beliefs never will.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)because Volvos, or something.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They all drive Volvos and love Bernie.
Volvo-Bros.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)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)For paid leave for new moms.
Won't someone think of the children?
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)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)of libertarian nonsense today. Way to go ThirdWayLeftLibertarianUnderground.com
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)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)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.
RandySF
(57,661 posts)TDale313
(7,820 posts)So much energy being spent to trash a good man with good, liberal ideas. Every day a new, desperate attack.
RandySF
(57,661 posts)This is calling an idea into question. Good grief is it ok to talk about issues?
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)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)What I find disingenuous (not the same thing, of course, as "unacceptable" 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)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)
F4lconF16 This message was self-deleted by its author.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)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)
F4lconF16 This message was self-deleted by its author.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)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)
F4lconF16 This message was self-deleted by its author.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)I'll self delete.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)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)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)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)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)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.