2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPolitico: Sanders proposes $15T in tax increases, hitting most taxpayers
Sanders proposes some ASTRONOMICAL tax increases.
Not surprisingly for a candidate who has made income inequality his central issue, Sanderss plan would wallop the rich, an analysis released Friday by the Tax Policy Center shows.
The top 0.1 percent would see their tax bills go up by more than $3 million, the report said, which would cut their after-tax incomes by almost half.
But Sanders, going where few politicians dare, would also raise taxes on middle- and low-income families, with those in the dead center of the income spectrum facing a $4,700 tax increase. That would reduce their after-tax incomes by 8.5 percent, the report said.
Read more at Report: Sanders proposes $15T in tax increases, hitting most taxpayers
For the actual report go here: AN ANALYSIS OF SENATOR BERNIE SANDERSS TAX PROPOSALS
I know what Sanders supporters will cry foul, largely because this analysis doesn't take account of all the "free" stuff people we get for all these extra taxes. Problem is when you actually start to think about the actual real costs of Sanders many spending proposals, he's way too optimistic, according to every serious analyst who has looked at it. He would actually have to raise taxes more than the astronomical amounts he already proposes to raise them.
The guy is no more serious than Donald Trump, when it comes to the seriousness of his policy prescriptions. And that's saying something.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Cast my first vote for McGovern way back when and have been a democrat all my adult life.
What I'm not is a blind dreamer who indulges in fairy tales and make believe.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Okay.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)you bet.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Thanks.
Nanjeanne
(4,960 posts)borrow $100,000?
kennetha
(3,666 posts)those in the dead center of the income spectrum facing a $4,700 tax increase. That would reduce their after-tax incomes by 8.5 percent, the report said.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-tax-increases-220267#ixzz41yQMXBPo
Nanjeanne
(4,960 posts)to.
Basically, the middle - or what appears to be $80,000 would pay $4,700 in more taxes. From that they would receive healthcare, tuition free college, paid family leave, strengthen and expanded Social Security, creating jobs through rebuilding America, Youth Jobs Program, and combating climate change through the carbon tax.
Even with just healthcare savings - I bet you would see a savings. But with all the rest . . . good news.
It's better to read all 50 pages rather than a soundbite from Politico pulling out info without a real explanation.
So THANK YOU for providing that link.
Luciferous
(6,080 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Thats a Democrat.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)asuhornets
(2,405 posts)don't get that this is a losing strategy in the general election "Sanders proposes some ASTRONOMICAL tax increases.".
kennetha
(3,666 posts)He just wants to "raise issue." So he offers pie-in-the-sky plans that have no hope of getting enacted. He's just trying to tickle the fantasies of the left and give them some dreams to work toward. Nothing wrong with that exactly, if he were being honest about it or if his supporters weren't so prone to magical thinking. It's the combination of his dishonesty and their magical thinking that spells trouble.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Because being a jerk as a supporter will do nothing to bring them to your side.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)isn't the same as being a jerk.
And besides, Hillary is treating Bernie with kid gloves, just because she will need his supporters. But you can be assured that if he were by some magic to win the nomination, he would simply be eviscerated.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)And please, stop with the 'treat me nice or I'm not voting' schtick. Your vote is your responsibility so take it seriously.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)It makes you look like a fool.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)your whining about people probing the consequences of Bernie's policies in a realistic way, makes you look frightened of the truth, wed to magical thinking, and a bit childish, frankly.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Second, you obviously believe that any change is hard and the status quo is just dandy. The country is fucked with thinking like that, and it's people like you that will keep it that way.
The rest of us will progress happily without you.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)typical of so many Sanders supporters.
the world is a multi-colored place, you know. It's not all black and white. It's not all take all of me or none of me.
As if the only alternative to the status quo is the pie-in-the sky politically dishonest nonsense laid out by Sanders.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)I think he is smart starting out with lofty proposals, because it increases the chances that the ultimate compromise will be closer to what he proposes. Part of me thinks that if President Obama had started out seeking single payer, they might have compromised on the public option. I don't think Sanders is promising people that all of his proposals will be enacted if he is president. He has said that getting them passed will require a lot of public pressure, on the magnitude of a revolution.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)or so............
Svafa
(594 posts)that this isn't Republican Underground, right?
kennetha
(3,666 posts)Hillary Clinton is proposing her own set of tax increases. But this is stuff is delusional.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Tax the damn rich.
Svafa
(594 posts)I'm assuming you support the candidate advocating a $15 minimum wage?
AzDar
(14,023 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Let's keep doing what we're doing. Most of the Flints are in, ah, poorer jurisdictions. Wink wink. Cackle cackle.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)if we were to follow Bernie into an abject defeat.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)They print money for Warmongers and Banksters all day long, but the People have too much "free stuff."
Why?
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)protect....
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)But before that, I'll wait for a careful review of this report, because we'll probably hear how off target it is, from this statement found in the article-
It was a difficult estimating task, said Frank Sammartino, a senior fellow at the group. For changes of this magnitude, were really going into unknown territory."
Lans
(66 posts)Would be paying less, while some would actually save money according to VOX
By 2025, the poorest Americans would actually save money. That's because Sanders's carbon tax is paid back to households making under $100,000 in the form of a rebate; the tax increases by 5 percent plus inflation every year, so eventually that rebate becomes big enough to cancel out all the tax increases.
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/4/11161616/bernie-sanders-tax-policy-center
Investing into healthcare, infrastructure and education is worth it - especially when you consider the savings from insurance. Companies would save a lot and we need to get them to invest into $15 minimum wage by 2020 and higher wages across the board due to health care savings they would be making.
[img][/img]
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Which is why they almost always dishonestly and intentionally omit the savings that come with Single Payer.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Seems like all the Clinton supporters have, just like Hillary's campaign is to distort and mislead. First, Bernie is the ONLY candidate who has put out specific proposals and also how he plans to pay for them. As you can see, if you look at the list below, the funding is mostly gotten from the rich and corporations and they are things people have wanted for a long time. . like taxing corporations for their offshore income, and a tiny tax on Wall Street speculation that will raise lots of money, etc.
Just take a look at the chart below and see if the hysteria that this OP is meant to convey is a reality or just more of the Clinton campaign's smearing BS.
Is that what you were thinking from the title of this misleading post? Didn't you think your taxes were going up 50% from what this deceptive post said? And you see it was simple distortion, as usual.
Where are Hillary's proposals and plans to fund them? Oh that's right, she has nothing specific other than her broad generalizations that "things are going to be better for all of us". What does she mean by that and how is she going to achieve that and how is she going to fund that? I guess it's easier to lie about Bernie than to put your own concrete proposals out there.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)That's a Bad Thing now?
Funny how that works.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Bernie has won a hell of a lot more elections than Clinton the Loser has, and he doesn't have to pretend to be a liberal to do it
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)Nanjeanne
(4,960 posts)take a look. First TPC. Robert C. Pozen is the Director. Let's look at his bio:
Robert C. Pozen is a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School, a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is former chairman of MFS Investment Management, the oldest mutual fund company in the United States. For 15 years, he was a key executive at Fidelity Investments, ending as vice-chairman. He was Secretary of Economic Affairs for the State of Massachusetts in 200203, was a member of President George W. Bushs Commission to Strengthen Social Security in 2001-02, and chairman of the SEC Advisory Committee on Financial Reporting in 2007-08.
Mr. Pozen serves on several boards, including Medtronic, Nielsen and a subsidiary of the World Bank
Next we have . . .
William A. Gale. What do you think he has in common with Mr. Pozen (surprise . . . it's that great tax cutter W). His bio:
William G. Gale is the Arjay and Frances Miller Chair in Federal Economic Policy and the former vice president and director of the Economic Studies Program at the Brookings Institution. He conducts research on a variety of economic issues, focusing particularly on tax policy, fiscal policy, pensions and saving behavior. He is also co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. Gale attended Duke University and the London School of Economics and received his Ph.D. from Stanford University in 1987.
Prior to joining Brookings in 1992, he was an assistant professor in the Department of Economics at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a senior staff economist for the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.
So I take all the information they present with a bit of a jaundiced eye. But even with that . . .
I've read through the analysis but must admit some of it made my eyes glaze over. But I perservered. In the summary we see a sentence that says: in 2017 it would increase the tax burden by an average of nearly $9,000. AN AVERAGE. Considering taxes will be much higher on someone earning $10 million - taking an average and putting it out there as if this is the average amount a person would pay is crazy talk. That's like saying my neighbor's house is $10 million. My house cost me $150,000. So the average house on my street is $5,075,000.00.
But if you read further - they actually do point out that the lowest income households would see a tax increase of just $165. And they would reap the benefits of healthcare, college, paid family leave, etc. I'm having a hard time figuring out what the "middle income" people facing $4,700. I think from the Notes part it is $80,000. But still if we accept this figure as accurate - a tradeoff of $4,700 for healthcare, affordable college, paid family leave, expanded SS, a Jobs Bill, a Youth Program Bill, and combating climate change through a Carbon Tax!
Now under the Economic effects, I can see how the conservative slant is being applied. I'm not sure I agree with the opinion that savings incentives would diminish. Or that spouses of higher income people won't work in order to keep their tax "burden" lower. People work for many reasons. We also have history to look at. During these 40 years of diminishing tax burden - we have not seen incomes go up, we have not seen small business expansion, we have not seen middle class growing or lower income people moving into the middle class.
Sanders capital gains tax rates are really not the big deal some make it out as. The rates proposed are 15% and 28% and considering that through most of this country's best years - capital gains tax was higher than these proposed figures - and people still saved, still invested, etc. Did we have wealthy people prior to Reagonomics? We sure did. Maybe not the number of billionaires we have now - but we certainly had plenty of millionaires and plenty of people incentivized to work, save and invest. The difference? We had a thriving middle class, many families could buy a house and send children to college with one paycheck, we didn't have the huge income inequality we have now.
So . . . after reading this whole thing through - I still can't find anything to really object to Sanders' tax proposals - but I guess if you are looking for a soundbite - or to pull one tiny piece of information to present as misinformation . . . you can do that. That's what is being done here and in 146 character Twitter.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Impedimentus
(898 posts)Whiners and criers ---> Tea Party fools, Republicans and Republican-Lites. Better to let the country go to hell than pay taxes. What crybabies!