Shoulders of giants, man. Shoulders of giants…
And he got a smart comment from a Doper that sailed over another stupid Doper’s head.
It absolutely amazes me the number of articles that are written about Bernie Sanders’ proposal for a single payer system that say “it’s going to cost X trillions of dollars. How could you possibly pay for that?”
Because it already costs almost $3 trillion annually. It’s rising faster than inflation at around 6% a year. It’s a larger share of our nation’s GDP than any other nation on this planet. We already pay for Medicare, Medicaid, VA benefits and those without insurance who need emergency care. We already pay for all of that out of our pocket and we do that ON TOP of insurance premiums that keep rising and keep covering less and less.
All you need to do is get rid of payments you make to an insurance company and pay it instead to the government for a single payer plan. Now, instantly, you’ve got a program where you know what things cost upfront, that negotiates medicine and service rates on behalf of an entire nation, and that covers you without you spending $10,000 on deductibles and then fighting customer service to cover the rest.
This costs us no more money. This will save us money. I simply do not understand journalists who only look at costs and not at income before declaring it unfeasible. And I do not understand Americans who can look at EVERY. SINGLE. DEVELOPED. NATION. ON. EARTH. And say “that’s a pipe dream. That could never work in America.”
It boggles my mind.
Right. How much money is everyone paying to their health insurance company, either directly or through their employer? Because all of that would suddenly no longer be going to them. Some of it would be converted to tax and go to the government, yes. But we would no longer be supporting a massive multi-billion dollar a year industry that exists solely to take money from us and turn around and give some fraction of it to our health-care providers, while keeping the rest for themselves.
Yeah, but, do I get to keep MY doctor? Because MY doctor is the only doctor who can diagnonse my specific problem with cholesterol. Also, my doctor actually makes the drugs used to treat my last GERD flare up. I don’t know if any other doctor knows the formula.
But then they would be jobless and have no access to medical care.
Oh, wait…
I stand corrected. Sorry to waste their time.
Geez. This thread reminds of why I try to avoid the “Elections” forum. The general stupidity of the conversions is way too thick to tolerate.
True.
Free College is a stupid idea. What you get for free you dont value, so we’ll have braindead lazy SOB’s lining up to suck taxpayer money and take the seats of more deserving students.
Now, that doesnt mean that having subsidized College so that it’s cheaper is a bad idea- that can certainly work. Having a lot of students exit college with crippling debt is a bad idea, so yes, we should help. But not just write a blank check.
Free doesn’t have to mean that all entry requirements are dropped and anybody with a 1.2 GPA is welcome to attend.
But I do agree that completely free is a also unrealistic.
What’s “weaselly” about representing your constituents’ interests? I thought that’s what elected officials were supposed to do.
I don’t think your rhetoric legimitately matches your cite. The link denigrates raising top tax rates to 50% before admitting that Sanders has no such proposal. At worst, the article says that one of his tax plans would only raise about half a trillion over 10 years, instead of 1.3 trillion, and therefore he would be dipping into the red if he hires American workers to improve America’s lackluster roads, bridges, and computer networks.
Not exactly damning math, especially considering that Sanders is honest and open enough to discuss how much his proposals might cost, along with ways to raise taxes and increase revenue. Lots of his targeted tax ideas (such as imposing a transaction fee on derivative trading or maintaining the social security tax on income above $250,000 a year) are not going to burden the middle class or even really demoralize the wealthy. There is not some monolithic “tax” that Sanders is planning on increasing.
In practical terms, a Sanders administration wouldn’t get everything it wanted, even if it wanted to return to a 91% top marginal tax rate (it doesn’t). There would probably be some tax increases, and some better assistance for people trying to get ahead, and almost assuredly fiscal responsibility, but nothing approaching the wholesale dismantling of society befitting this forum.
The stupidest Bernie Sanders idea so far s this TV ad. It will not sway an voters to him, and it will tickle the gag reflex of many who do support him. Just a stone waste of money.
I doubt it will make supporters gag. It’s a basic introduction ad. Nothing specific or too exciting. just introducing him to the voters.
Seems like a standard political ad. State policy positions in a way that makes you look good.
What exactly is the issue?
This is a whoosh, right?
Yeah… what? I had no problem with that ad.
Some very back of the envelope calculations…
I’m just going to look at the numbers for 1 top % and the rest of the top qunitile. It’s informative without digging deeper into the breakdowns. I used the most generous assumption about “50%” and use that as the average tax rate not just the marginal tax rate for the highest group. (Marginal rate would have been far more complex anyway.) The source/method of the tax doesn’t matter in this case just that it comes out of those households. Method obviously matters for how it’s really distributed but the average tax rate is the average tax.
First what do we need to raise to pay for all the new stuff with a balanced budget?
Current defiict plus the increased spending in the new budget deal is about .5 trillion.
Proposed new spending 1.8 trillion a year.
That includes UHC so let’s subtract the 23% of current 3.5 trillion budget that goes to Medicare/Medicaid. That’s .8 trillion.
Net we’re looking at 1.5 trillion we need to raise. That’s about a 50% total increase in federal revenues.
Total income (all sources not just wages) in the US is 14.734 trillion. Using CBO percentages of income by household and tax rates here.
The top 1% pull 2.15 trillion in total income. They currently pay an average rate of 33.4% in federal taxes. A 16.6% raise in their total federal tax burden gets us 357 billion. We’re still over a trillion shy (1.14 trillion)
The 81-99 percentile folks have total income of 5.50 trillion and an average tax rate of 22.3%. To get the necessary numbers an average tax rate of 48.5% is necessary for the entire group.
That gives us a little room to tax below the 50% line for the lowest earning households but not much. The current averaged tax rates are still progressive through that rest of the top quintile range too so there less room at the top for increases without busting 50%. Between 81-90 we’re pulling 18.8% now but 95-99 is already at 23.4%. We’re not getting to the required numbers without pushing deep into the quintile if we’re limiting ourselves to 50%. What’s the cutoff between the top and second quintiles - a touch over $116k. Just doubling the average rate for a family right at the line (18.8% raise to 37.6% rate) costs that family an additional 18.8k in federal taxes per year. If they were at the 48.5% their tax increase would be $34.4k a year for a total of federal tax burden of $56,260 a year. Feel the wallet Bern.
None of that looks at negative effects on GDP growth of significantly higher taxes. It’s just cutting up the current pie without the dynamic changes in pie size. We can probably get the top average rate up to 63% (what the top group’s average rate was both in 1961 and 1965 after the Kennedy proposed tax cuts. That gives us slack to not reach as deep depending on the dynamic effects. It’s still likely reaching deeper than the usual perception. Sanders hasn’t made a concrete proposal for a group like The Tax Foundation to properly analyze though. The numbers aren’t necessarily impossible but they are hard. He’s just avoided saying exactly how hard by not putting a plan out there.
I don’t think this is exactly true. A supply of highly-educated workers does not in itself create higher demand for their skilled labor. Rather, the benefit is that getting that education wouldn’t mean going into debt to money-lenders.
Would you believe I sort of agree? I also think we shouldn’t have free and universal secondary school. Public schooling should stop at eighth grade! I saw so many wastes taking up seats in high school who should have just been dumped in the workforce. 
Even if I were serious about that last paragraph, I wouldn’t really agree with your post. Tax-supported education is not a new or strange idea. It does not mean that more qualified students have to miss out. We can add capacity or screen out the low-performing applicants.
Out of interest, just how much did you pay to reach your level of education and intellect. Have you considered asking for a refund?
The idea that free education means that colleges fill up with “braindead lazy SOB” is self evidently wrong. Each college has x places for a particular course. Good old supply and demand means that if you have more applicants for those places (i.e. people are not deterred by huge loans, or reliant on family money) then the colleges can set higher academic requirements to get a place on that course.