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

Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by dviss1, Feb 11, 2016.

  1. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,957
    Likes Received:
    10,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    My point is you can't trust the government or Sanders when they say "we're going to save money" or "we'll pay for it with savings from not paying for (something else)." The reality is once established, government entitlement programs simply grow and grow and consume more and more or our paychecks. We can't afford these things, frankly. If we could, we wouldn't be in such massive debt. We're borrowing to pay for them.

    I'm not a deficit hawk, per se. I'm fine with the government borrowing money, and it should borrow money. Under certain circumstances. For example, to build the Golden Gate Bridge, the government borrows $billions and pays it off over time via tax revenue or tolls or whatever. Great. But to borrow to pay your ongoing regular expenses is just crazy. It's a house of cards and flimsy at best.

    Tort reform is a complex issue. Progressives will point out that the actual amount of money saved is puny, and it probably is. There just aren't enough massive payouts. However, the doctors and hospitals are afraid of having to pay a massive payout so they run a ridiculous number of tests to cover their asses. That money runs up the cost of health care and progressives don't want to acknowledge it.

    How about considering a market based solution that has a strong competition element? I see ads for auto insurance all the time where one company is undercutting another. Given the regulatory environment, this isn't happening with health. That's what I'd fix.

    Also, how about the government competing with private sector health care? Realize that health care is seeing patients, diagnosing illness, providing treatment, etc. It has ZERO to do with insurance. It wouldn't cost the government anywhere near as much as for ObamaCare, or Bernie's whacked out scheme, to build hospitals, buy equipment and medicine, and hire doctors and nurses. Not single payer, just another source of care; something like the VA.
     
  2. riverman

    riverman Writing Team

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    66,303
    Likes Received:
    64,441
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some good points but I'll counter with the fact that this competitive field in the auto industry has not made cars more affordable...car prices with the element of competition are still rising
     
  3. UncleCliffy'sDaddy

    UncleCliffy'sDaddy We're all Bozos on this bus.

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2015
    Messages:
    6,650
    Likes Received:
    13,485
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The main message I got from this, is that if 11+ million jobs are lost by going the single payer route, then we have been paying for unnecessary jobs via high insurance premiums for too many years. That's outrageous. And people call public employees leeches....
     
    dviss1 and riverman like this.
  4. riverman

    riverman Writing Team

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    66,303
    Likes Received:
    64,441
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you realize that other than you and I and a handful of geezers they are all at work reading and posting here!
     
  5. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,957
    Likes Received:
    10,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Auto insurance is cheaper and affordable. And cars are more affordable, too. A new 2016 Prius costs the same as they did in 2005. You can lease a KIA for $75/month.
     
  6. OSUBlazerfan

    OSUBlazerfan Writing Team

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    6,906
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guarentee you my healthcare costs under Bernie would NOT go down
     
  7. JFizzleRaider

    JFizzleRaider Sad Panda Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Messages:
    12,870
    Likes Received:
    5,188
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Who Knows?
    My health care costs based on his calculator go down a little, but my taxes go up substantially more that it would be $2,000 more out of pocket
     
  8. WarriorFan

    WarriorFan Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2008
    Messages:
    529
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    28

    Where did you find that calculator? I tried googling but just get inundated with people swearing that it will be much cheaper or others just as adamant that it's much more expensive. Can't find anywhere that I can actually enter numbers.
     
  9. JFizzleRaider

    JFizzleRaider Sad Panda Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Messages:
    12,870
    Likes Received:
    5,188
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Who Knows?
    Dviss posted it above. Click on the link he provided and it will take you there
     
  10. WarriorFan

    WarriorFan Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2008
    Messages:
    529
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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.
     
  11. JFizzleRaider

    JFizzleRaider Sad Panda Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Messages:
    12,870
    Likes Received:
    5,188
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Who Knows?
    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
     
  12. BrianFromWA

    BrianFromWA Editor in Chief Staff Member Editor in Chief

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    26,060
    Likes Received:
    9,014
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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:
    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?
     
  13. dviss1

    dviss1 Emcee Referee

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    29,346
    Likes Received:
    27,156
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Frankly, You don't know what you're talking about.
     
  14. dviss1

    dviss1 Emcee Referee

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    29,346
    Likes Received:
    27,156
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your employer would no longer have to pay that.
     
  15. WarriorFan

    WarriorFan Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2008
    Messages:
    529
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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.
     
  16. dviss1

    dviss1 Emcee Referee

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    29,346
    Likes Received:
    27,156
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  17. dviss1

    dviss1 Emcee Referee

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    29,346
    Likes Received:
    27,156
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  18. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,957
    Likes Received:
    10,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Except... it's not your money to spend.
     
  19. riverman

    riverman Writing Team

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    66,303
    Likes Received:
    64,441
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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
     
  20. dviss1

    dviss1 Emcee Referee

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    29,346
    Likes Received:
    27,156
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    bodyman5000 and 1 likes this.

Share This Page