Politics Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says

[JfizzleBlazer]

Thank you.

Seems strange though, when I enter just the premium, not including my copays and deductibles, of 6000 it tells me I will save over 3600. But that means my families total insurance cost is only 2400 which is less that the 2.2% proposed tax, ignoring that some of the 6.2% that my employer pays will, or at least could, be passed down to me.

Yeah I'd like to know what the calculation is from. But I'm too lazy to actually investigate.

Can't say I'd believe something that comes from a candidate's website though

 

[BrianFromWA]

Not going to delve into the politics, but just asking about the math...

If 26M jobs are created, and the unemployment rate is 4.9% today with 7.8M unemployed persons (as posted by Bureau of Labor and Statistics), how does that only take the unemployment rate to 3.8%? So it would not only going to give everyone unemployed a job, but draft 18.2M other folks who are not currently in the workforce to do so? Or to backfill those jumping from their current job into one of Bernie's jobs?

From the link:

The thinking goes: This enhanced government spending would increase demand on businesses, who would then hire more workers to meet their needs. The increase in employment will prompt people to buy more, leading other businesses to hire.
"If there is more spending, people will have more to do," Friedman said, noting that the share of the population with jobs could be restored to its 1999 level of more than 64%, up from its current 59.6% rate.

Can someone explain what the benefits of the economic stimulus package of 2009 did, in terms of jobs? Did that 800B spike create jobs for 5% of America? What did the $5T in defecit spending over the last 6 years do, and what makes Bernie or his supporters think that giving that money to Congress this time around will do better things for America (snarkily, I'd say that you're giving it to majority R's instead of supermajority D's, but I don't want to cloud this with politics)?

As for the median wage going up 22k, with 64% of America employed, that means that there's 350M*.64 *22k = $5Trillion dollars per year more going into salaries than even the CBO projects for 2026. Not 5T in salaries--5T more in salaries. If someone can explain how the government's investment in 13T in medical over 10 years can quadruple itself into salaries, I'd be stoked to hear it.

As for free college, right now there are many more people going to college than (seemingly) the workforce can provide for. What will more college graduates--paid for by the government--do? Not many people are stopped from going to college right now. It's just that when they graduate there isn't a lot of work out there for liberal arts majors. Per the NSF, of the 20.9M enrollees in higher education in 2009, less than 500k graduated with a degree in a science or engineering field (which was among the highest numbers ever and an increase from 350k in 1994). 6 years after enrolling, 62% of S&E majors had earned a degree, compared to 55% in other fields. 45% of non-S&E majors didn't finish a degree within 6 years. How is making that free going to help significantly, whether having them perform better in school or getting them a job after graduation?

 

[dviss1]

I guarentee you my healthcare costs under Bernie would NOT go down

Frankly, You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[dviss1]

Thank you.

Seems strange though, when I enter just the premium, not including my copays and deductibles, of 6000 it tells me I will save over 3600. But that means my families total insurance cost is only 2400 which is less that the 2.2% proposed tax, ignoring that some of the 6.2% that my employer pays will, or at least could, be passed down to me.

Your employer would no longer have to pay that.

 

[WarriorFan]

Your employer would no longer have to pay that.

Isn't that part of his plan or was the page where I read that mistaken? And do you know why my bill would be only 2400 when the 2.2% would be over 4000? Loopholes where the first 100K is excluded (I have a wife and 3 kids)? Can't imagine that's the case but I can't think of another explanation. Or are they not including the tax I will pay when they say my health care costs will go down?

Forgive my ignorance, I did look to find the info myself but can't find any explanation and you seem to know much more about this that I do.

 

[dviss1]

Isn't that part of his plan or was the page where I read that mistaken? And do you know why my bill would be only 2400 when the 2.2% would be over 4000? Loopholes where the first 100K is excluded (I have a wife and 3 kids)? Can't imagine that's the case but I can't think of another explanation. Or are they not including the tax I will pay when they say my health care costs will go down?

Forgive my ignorance, I did look to find the info myself but can't find any explanation and you seem to know much more about this that I do.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/

I made a mistake:

Businesses would save over $9,400 a year in health care costs for the average employee.

The average annual cost to the employer for a worker with a family who makes $50,000 a year would go from $12,591 to just $3,100.

 

[dviss1]

THE PLAN WOULD BE FULLY PAID FOR BY:

• A 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers.
  Revenue raised: $630 billion per year.
• A 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households.
  Revenue raised: $210 billion per year.This year, a family of four taking the standard deduction can have income up to $28,800 and not pay this tax under this plan.
  
  
  A family of four making $50,000 a year taking the standard deduction would only pay $466 this year.
  
  
• Progressive income tax rates.
  Revenue raised: $110 billion a year.Under this plan the marginal income tax rate would be:
  
  
  • 37 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000.
  • 43 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million.
  • 48 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. (In 2013, only113,000 households, the top 0.08 percent of taxpayers, had income between $2 million and $10 million.)
  • 52 percent on income above $10 million. (In 2013, only 13,000 households, just 0.01 percent of taxpayers, had income exceeding $10 million.)
• Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work.
  Revenue raised: $92 billion per year.Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest American in the country, has said that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. The reason is that he receives most of his income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a much lower rate than income from work. This plan will end the special tax break for capital gains and dividends on household income above $250,000.
• Limit tax deductions for rich.
  Revenue raised: $15 billion per yearUnder Bernie’s plan, households making over $250,000 would no longer be able to save more than 28 cents in taxes from every dollar in tax deductions. This limit would replace more complicated and less effective limits on tax breaks for the rich including the AMT, the personal exemption phase-out and the limit on itemized deductions.
• The Responsible Estate Tax.
  Revenue raised: $21 billion per year.This provision would tax the estates of the wealthiest 0.3 percent (three-tenths of 1 percent) of Americans who inherit over $3.5 million at progressive rates and close loopholes in the estate tax.
• Savings from health tax expenditures.
  Revenue raised: $310 billion per year.Several tax breaks that subsidize health care (health-related “tax expenditures”) would become obsolete and disappear under a single-payer health care system, saving $310 billion per year.
  
  
  Most importantly, health care provided by employers is compensation that is not subject to payroll taxes or income taxes under current law. This is a significant tax break that would effectively disappear under this plan because all Americans would receive health care through the new single-payer program instead of employer-based health care.
  

 

[Denny Crane]

Except... it's not your money to spend.

 

[riverman]

THE PLAN WOULD BE FULLY PAID FOR BY:

• A 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers.
  Revenue raised: $630 billion per year.
• A 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households.
  Revenue raised: $210 billion per year.This year, a family of four taking the standard deduction can have income up to $28,800 and not pay this tax under this plan.
  
  
  A family of four making $50,000 a year taking the standard deduction would only pay $466 this year.
  
  
• Progressive income tax rates.
  Revenue raised: $110 billion a year.Under this plan the marginal income tax rate would be:
  
  • 37 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000.
  • 43 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million.
  • 48 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. (In 2013, only113,000 households, the top 0.08 percent of taxpayers, had income between $2 million and $10 million.)
  • 52 percent on income above $10 million. (In 2013, only 13,000 households, just 0.01 percent of taxpayers, had income exceeding $10 million.)
• Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work.
  Revenue raised: $92 billion per year.Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest American in the country, has said that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. The reason is that he receives most of his income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a much lower rate than income from work. This plan will end the special tax break for capital gains and dividends on household income above $250,000.
• Limit tax deductions for rich.
  Revenue raised: $15 billion per yearUnder Bernie’s plan, households making over $250,000 would no longer be able to save more than 28 cents in taxes from every dollar in tax deductions. This limit would replace more complicated and less effective limits on tax breaks for the rich including the AMT, the personal exemption phase-out and the limit on itemized deductions.
• The Responsible Estate Tax.
  Revenue raised: $21 billion per year.This provision would tax the estates of the wealthiest 0.3 percent (three-tenths of 1 percent) of Americans who inherit over $3.5 million at progressive rates and close loopholes in the estate tax.
• Savings from health tax expenditures.
  Revenue raised: $310 billion per year.Several tax breaks that subsidize health care (health-related “tax expenditures”) would become obsolete and disappear under a single-payer health care system, saving $310 billion per year.
  
  
  Most importantly, health care provided by employers is compensation that is not subject to payroll taxes or income taxes under current law. This is a significant tax break that would effectively disappear under this plan because all Americans would receive health care through the new single-payer program instead of employer-based health care.

Oregon already has brutal capital gains taxes, property taxes and no sales tax....I don't want to add to the capital gains tax at all

 

[dviss1]

Oregon already has brutal capital gains taxes, property taxes and no sales tax....I don't want to add to the capital gains tax at all

No, what's brutal is being taxed higher for actual work. Those sitting at home waiting on a dividend check need to pay up. Capital gains in Oregon are what 11-13%?

Why the fuck should I pay a higher percentage than a day trader or hedge fund manager? That bullshit needs to end.

 

[dviss1]

Except... it's not your money to spend.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

 

[Denny Crane]

It's still not your money to spend.

 

[dviss1]

It's still not your money to spend.

So? Read and follow your constitution ol' Libertarian.

 

[dviss1]

We have over 29 million people uninsured. This is a problem. Congress has the power to raise taxes to promote the general welfare of our society. Paying for single-payer healthcare will do just that.

 

[Denny Crane]

So? Read and follow your constitution ol' Libertarian.

If it were your money, you'd be paying for all this free shit you think everyone will be getting.

 

[jlprk]

It's still not your money to spend.

Whose is it then? Current tax law gives the break to you, brokered by lobbyists for the rich. Bernie's tax law would give the break to me. Why does the accident of history, the arbitrary current subsidy to you, make it eternally your money?

 

[riverman]

No, what's brutal is being taxed higher for actual work. Those sitting at home waiting on a dividend check need to pay up. Capital gains in Oregon are what 11-13%?

Why the fuck should I pay a higher percentage than a day trader or hedge fund manager? That bullshit needs to end.

People who have invested in IRAs, mutual funds, etc..aren't necessarily sitting around at home waiting on dividend checks dviss...bad stereotype that ignores the elderly, many whom have worked actual jobs for decades. I'm one of them and I work with one who is paralyzed so I guess at 83..he has no choice but to sit down and wait....he was a milkman all is life..so he's not exactly sippin' mai tai's at club med

 

[jlprk]

People who have invested in IRAs, mutual funds, etc..aren't necessarily sitting around at home waiting on dividend checks dviss...bad stereotype that ignores the elderly, many whom have worked actual jobs for decades. I'm one of them and I work with one who is paralyzed so I guess at 83..he has no choice but to sit down and wait....he was a milkman all is life..so he's not exactly sippin' mai tai's at club med

If not the capital gains rate...Do you have a better solution for the fact that the top 1% own 68% of America? What's the better idea?

 

[riverman]

If not the capital gains rate...Do you have a better solution for the fact that the top 1% own 68% of America? What's the better idea?

no....was that a condition? I do want a sales tax in Oregon though. That's where I'd fund health care. Spend money, you tip the system..we lose out big time in Oregon without one

 

[Denny Crane]

Whose is it then? Current tax law gives the break to you, brokered by lobbyists for the rich. Bernie's tax law would give the break to me. Why does the accident of history, the arbitrary current subsidy to you, make it eternally your money?

Bernie's not giving you a tax break, he's planning to raise your taxes.

There isn't enough money for what the government pays for now. Over the course of Obama's presidency, the government has spent $8 TRILLION more than it took in. $8T in 7 years, but let's call it 8 so the math is easy. $1T a year more than the government took in. It took in $2.1T in 2009 which grew to $3T in 2014. To raise $1T, just to break even on the garbage government spends on now, they'd have to raise EVERY tax there is by 1/3 ($2.1T -> $3T). That's before raising any money for Bernie's free shit.

There isn't enough money already. Only a fool would double down on what's failing miserably.

Whose money is it? My money is mine, yours is yours. Yours isn't mine and vice-versa.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

no....was that a condition? I do want a sales tax in Oregon though. That's where I'd fund health care. Spend money, you tip the system..we lose out big time in Oregon without one

Terrible idea. You give the state another vehicle to tax, and then they have income, property and sales to get you.

States with income tax fare better than sakes tax states during recession

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

I'm not even close to the 1% and Bernie based on his calculation wants to tax me 2k more per year

 

[Denny Crane]

If not the capital gains rate...Do you have a better solution for the fact that the top 1% own 68% of America? What's the better idea?

The tax system is progressive. Your 68% figure is bullshit.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

 

[jlprk]

Bernie's not giving you a tax break, he's planning to raise your taxes.

Combined tax + health insurance will decrease for all but the top 2 or 3 percent of people.

There isn't enough money for what the government pays for now. Over the course of Obama's presidency, the government has spent $8 TRILLION more than it took in. $8T in 7 years, but let's call it 8 so the math is easy. $1T a year more than the government took in. It took in $2.1T in 2009 which grew to $3T in 2014. To raise $1T, just to break even on the garbage government spends on now, they'd have to raise EVERY tax there is by 1/3 ($2.1T -> $3T). That's before raising any money for Bernie's free shit.
There isn't enough money already. Only a fool would double down on what's failing miserably.

Blaming Democrats again. I have answered you on that many times.

Reagan, Big Bush, and Little Bush did almost all the damage to the national debt. How do you feel about the giant tax cut for the rich enacted by Republicans right after Little Bush was "elected," before 9/11? That destroyed the Clinton surpluses. You have said you're for it (because it saves you money, and because it creates an entrenched increasing deficit that even Obama can't beat, so that you can claim that a lot of the debt has happened on his watch).

The government borrowed it from lenders. Clinton had the government paying back the lenders, but the Republican Congress stole the surplus and gave it to their rich campaign contributors...who were NOT the ones it had been taken from as you claim...they were the ones who had most benefited, free, from the debt to the lenders...so they were the ones who had TAKEN it, not been taken FROM. So rich Republicans benefited twice.

This was right wing theft, not left wing economics.

Government "needed" to repay its loans, much more than it "needed" to give gifts to the rich. Democrats tried to repay the loans made by the Reagan and Big Bush giant deficits, but were stopped by Republicans. Now you post that the deficit exists because of Democrats.

----

Whose money is it? My money is mine, yours is yours. Yours isn't mine and vice-versa.

So you're willing to refund the 15 years of arbitrary tax breaks you received solely due to the 2001 legislation. Refund it!

 

[Denny Crane]

Wow. I can't respond to your post because it's entirely wrong.

You may as well tell me the moon is made of cheese.

 

[riverman]

Terrible idea. You give the state another vehicle to tax, and then they have income, property and sales to get you.

States with income tax fare better than sakes tax states during recession

I don't want high property tax if a sales tax enters..different slant. Do I believe the State would lower it? No...so we're stuck in this one. Living in Taiwan we had national health insurance ...20 dollars a month per household and funded with a 6 percent sales tax ...every week the number on a sales rcpt was a lottery number...you'd win the 20 bucks back fairly often but shopping....not folks savings funded the system.

 

[Denny Crane]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

The trust funds run surpluses in that the amount paid in by current workers is more than the amount paid out to current beneficiaries. These surpluses are given to theU.S. Treasury (and thus become part of the general federal budget) in exchange for special U.S. government securities, which are deposited into the trust funds. If the trust funds begin running deficits, meaning more in benefits are paid out than contributions paid in, the Social Security Administration is empowered to redeem the securities and use those funds to cover the deficit.

(This is the only debt that was not paid off by Kasich).

 

[jlprk]

Your 68% figure is bullshit.

Looking it up, I see that the top 5%, not the top 1%, own 68% of America. Here's something else I just found.

 

[Denny Crane]

Looking it up, I see that the top 5%, not the top 1%, own 68% of America. Here's something else I just found.

You were wrong, as I said.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/percent-of-americans-who-own-their-home/

67.35% of americans own their own home, 29.75% free and clear.

Clear indication that there's plenty of wealth to go around.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-08-30-outnumbered-cars_x.htm

For the first time, there are more vehicles than people to drive them in the average U.S. household.

So says the Transportation Department, which reports that there are 107 million U.S. households, each with an average of 1.9 cars, trucks or sport utility vehicles and 1.8 drivers. That equals 204 million vehicles and 191 million drivers, said the Bureau of Transportation Statistics Friday.

What's the matter, 1.9 cars per household not enough?

It's clear people are getting their panties in a wad over bullshit.

 

[jlprk]

Wow. I can't respond to your post because it's entirely wrong.

You may as well tell me the moon is made of cheese.

You never respond, because you can't. Then in the next thread, you state the same falsehood...that the size of the deficit is due to numbers occurring during the Obama administration. You never take blame for the rich getting the giant tax break in 2001, suddenly destroying Clinton's miracle, having the nation paying off the whole accumulated deficit.

Then you say, the money is yours. As if by divine right, instead of from the arbitrary 2001 tax break you got.