2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumit is sad - a hillary supporter says her taxes are going to go up 30 k a year
if Sanders is elected - she says that she can not afford it
wish my taxes were going to go up 30 k a year
they live in a different world
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TDale313
(7,822 posts)She's either totally wrong or incredibly well off- possibly both.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)my taxes would go up by way more than $30K
No Sanders ... never ever
angrychair
(12,284 posts)What rate are you being taxed at now? For that to be true you would have to literally be greater than top 1%. Especially considering over 40% of Americans make less than $30,000 a year.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)because to pay 30K more your income would have to be over 250K a year. And if that is the case, even though I doubt it please tell us about that...,
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)
Hydra
(14,459 posts)I don't even make 30k, and most people who make enough to pay out 30K extra in taxes on a modest tax increase don't spend their time on a political board doing damage control for a struggling candidate.
So which is is? Are you being paid less than you are claiming, or are you not out in the world enjoying your money?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)However, under Cruz's tax plan, my taxes would go down by 6 figures.
Not sure if either of our candidates will sweeten your pot.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)But I gave you the benefit of the doubt using the lower number.
If you are running over $750k per year, or making massive capital gains or abusing one of the tax loopholes, you should be happy to pay into the "Hillary helped us get into a major war paid for on credit" repair fund.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Good for you. Here's to the hope you pay more.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)you sound like that chef who didn't want to give up $300K of his $5M net profit to give his employees a raise.
One day there will be a shortening.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Seriously, they look like a child did them in MS Paint.
libtodeath
(2,892 posts)if one lurks other sites.
alcina
(602 posts)So he could easily be making over $250k, and could just as easily be spending his nights in front of a computer. Then again, could just be ....
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Also, he states far higher than 250k, unless it is some sort of closed tax loophole or capital gains he is accruing.
Response to cosmicone (Reply #23)
Post removed
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)You know of course that the FEC limits individual candidate contributions to 2700$? I know you do because you said so here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110787412
At reply #3 "I'm maxed out too but
I'm getting donations from my republican neighbors (I am surrounded by them) by saying, "if Bernie gets in, you'll be paying 90% in taxes so make sure Clinton wins" hahahahahahaha"
So admit right now-is this post a lie, or was THE EARLIER ONE?
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)Mention one little hint of felony and the discussion is all over?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Since when?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and I do not believe they are donating to Hillary, they just say that to humor you. Your posts do not have the ring of truth at all. It's all snark and fiction.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)
Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)If your taxes are going up $30k (single, no children)
According to the calculator link below, which doesn't account for healthcare savings
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)can pay for all the safety nets. Clinton will make the working class pay for helping the poor and not her friends that pay her cash.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Read Hillarys Lips "no new taxes"
frylock
(34,825 posts)However will you get by?
First, I doubt it because anyone who says this doesn't understand how taxes work.
Second, if it were true, this type of greed only belongs in the GOP.
yodermon
(6,153 posts)JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)your name is wealth, and your banner holds hillary.
Sorry cosmic, I was hoping you had better sense than to make choices with your account manager.
Gothmog
(179,869 posts)
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)Eat at home
Go to food pantries.
Shop at Goodwill and the Dollar Store.
Newkularblue
(130 posts)And apply for rental assistance, heating assistance, state health care etc etc
You know, what TAXES pay for.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)Owned by trader joes. He should try it. 
http://www.businessinsider.com/aldi-is-fixing-is-biggest-weakness-and-that-should-terrify-whole-foods-2016-1
Eta: bring a quarter for the cart. Don't forget your shopping bags (everyone has those these days though)
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)A lot of people would see increases and not be pleased. And not all of them would be super wealthy...
Impedimentus
(898 posts)Price per plane or ship:
B-2 Spirit: $2.4 billion
F-22 Raptor: $350 million
C17A Globemaster III: $328 million
P-8A Poseidon: $290 million
E-2D Advanced Hawkeye: $232 million
Gerald R. Ford-Class Nuclear Aircraft Carrier (CVN 78): $12 billion
LHA 6 America-Class Amphibious Assault Ship: $3.4 billion
and the list goes on and on and on.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)wouldn't want to do that. Clinton will have us involved in new wars and our defense budget would have to raise, right? But that's ok with you right? More profits for the wealthy, right? Less health care for the poor, right?
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Even your own candidate has said he would raise taxes. All I'm saying is that people would end up paying something and that nothing is really free. No need to fly off the handle and get so hateful. 
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's about an hour of Medicare spending, or an hour and a half of Social Security.
beaglelover
(4,466 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I guess the Bernie folks are right ... I am voting against my economic interests!
I really should be voting republican ... it would save me between $12-$16K; whereas, voting for one of the Democratic candidates would cost me $615 more, and the other would cost me over $22k.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)programs. Tax breaks for the rich if they help the 99%. Think about it, tax breaks for the rich are picked up by us. Fuck tax breaks for the rich.
Her corporate donors have asked her to try to keep the min wage down. $12 fucking dollars an hour. How low can she get? While she rakes in millions and millions from speeches, she want's to keep the wages of the working poor low and lower. Her daughter, an employee of the Foundation is worth $15 million dollars. What an insult to those in the working class struggling to make ends meet. Not that you care.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)so, yes ... my taxes would go up ... far LESS than under the other candidate; but, up they would go.
The rest of what you are bleating about is your typical 
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)So Hillary is the closest thing to a Republican?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)What are you talking about? Never mind ... I'm sure I will give zero damns.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)unless you remove every cent of healthcare cost. It has already been debunked.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)I did the math shorthand, and my tax increase would be 1/4 of that calculator. It also automatically bumped me up to the next tax category for "value in 2017 dollars."
metroins
(2,550 posts)Bernie would cost me a heck of a lot more than 4k in taxes.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Have fun training your replacement.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)including our monthly premiums ... so Bernie would cost me a heck of a lot more, as well!
But my larger point, again, is (per the calculator) I am in deed voting against my own interest ... if, like so many here wish to imply, my interests were limited to dollars in my pocket ... they are not.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Including deductibles, i would pay over $10k more a year, according to this calculator.
And no, I'm not in the 1%
Renew Deal
(85,151 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Locrian
(4,523 posts)
I keep seeing FB posts with links to that "tax calculator" - now I have some links of my own.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)dchill
(42,660 posts)and that person doesn't get it!
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)
Autumn
(48,962 posts)real cheap, it has a slight crack in a block when they moved it from London.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Reminds me of the horror stories the idiot tea partiers used to fabricate about what would happen if Obama got elected.
ZOMG WE'RE ALL DOOMED!!!
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Sad when they believe that crap on a liberal website, I thought we were supposed to be the smart kids.
frylock
(34,825 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)It seems that the more money people have, the less they want others to have.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)Not many people like to take home 2,500 less per month. I don't care how rich you are.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)using some basic algebra, someone whose taxes are going to go up 30k is making about a million dollars a year. So, let's see, that's about 83k per month, of which 2,500 is about 3%. I'd say if you're that rich you should be able to manage on that small a reduction.
I know an awful lot of us tend to spend our entire income, but if your income is that high you ought to be managing your money much better.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Under 150,000, taxes do not go up.
EmperorHasNoClothes
(4,797 posts)
There's also his healthcare tax, but that is way more than offset by not having to pay insurance premiums. (Unless you're super rich like this Hillary supporter seems to be)
Festivito
(13,890 posts)Wonder how this person would manage on $30,000 a year or half of even that if near minimum wage and working overtime.... if $300,000 is not enough.
Of course the poster DOES NOT reveal $300,000 a year or that it could be over $500,000 per year. Just a sad reveal of it is too much. Oh, the pain!
I think the HRC group might have banned everyone who might put 2+2 together over there.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Impedimentus
(898 posts)litlbilly
(2,227 posts)tokenlib
(4,186 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Of course, he also has a beach front vacation home, so he's good.
desmiller
(747 posts) 
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Would be a real winner in the GE. Surely The republicans would never use that against him.
Impedimentus
(898 posts)Screw the Republicans, Bernie will go after them - it's about time a Democrat played hardball with the Repubs. Cowardly Dems need not apply.
FEEL THE BERN - 2016
basselope
(2,565 posts)The "He's gonna raise your taxes" only works until they do the math and understand that they actually SAVE money by not paying for health care.
Impedimentus
(898 posts)Renew Deal
(85,151 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I just happen to agree with it because:
a) wealth inequality is fucking up this country.
b) getting wealth back in circulation will stimulate the economy
c) health care costs each family more than $25,000 annually.
d) social security should be expanded.
e) high taxes fuel charitable giving - low taxes strangle it.
I can easily imagine a household whose taxes would go up 30k a year - and I'm okay with that.
basselope
(2,565 posts)In all reality if next year is anything last the last few years, my "taxes" will go up by well over 30K under Sanders.
However, to say I can't afford it... well that's just nonsensical.
Because in order to be paying 30K MORE in taxes that means you are making over 300K per year. Is this 30K really such a burden to those of us lucky enough to be in that bracket?
Factor in the amount you WON'T be paying in health care costs and the 30K is actually more like 15K out of pocket..which ain't that big a deal to someone with income in that range.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)ALBliberal
(3,339 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)...
Vinca
(53,994 posts)PonyUp
(1,680 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)This is one of the reasons that nominating Bernie would be unwise. Months of ads detailing just how enormous his proposed tax increases are.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)March 30, 2016
By Jim Naureckas
The website Vox (3/25/16) has what editor-in-chief Ezra Klein describes as an “excellent tax calculator” that, in its headline’s promise, “Tells You How Each Presidential Candidate’s Tax Plan Affects You.”
Actually, it does no such thing; it’s a gimmick that is entirely useless except as a deceptive advertisement for Hillary Clinton
As a gimmick, it’s pretty simple. You put in your annual income (actually, your “expanded cash income,” which you probably don’t know even if you know what it is), whether you’re single or married and whether you have no kids, one kid, or two or more kids. And then it tells you what Donald Trump’s, Ted Cruz’s, Hillary Clinton’s and Bernie Sanders’ “plans mean for your federal tax liability.”
Let’s try it out with the US median household income ($43,585), married, two kids. You get a graphic that looks like this:
“Pay $5,110 more”—holy smokes! Stop the revolution, I want to get off! Why didn’t someone (besides Vox’s Alvin Chang) tell me that “Sanders wants to implement massive increases across the board, including on the poor”?
Maybe because he doesn’t—and you wouldn’t pay $5,110 more, or anything like it.
Mostly, that big number you get for the Sanders tax hike when you plug in your income is the payroll tax that employers will pay to cover the cost of a single-payer healthcare system. As the Tax Policy Center, which worked with Vox to create the calculator, explains:
We’re including payroll taxes, excise taxes and corporate income taxes as well as individual income taxes…. Most economists think employers pass their share of the tax on to workers in the form of lower wages.
With all due respect to most economists, this is dubious. Unless you work at the rare enterprise that does not have profit as its primary goal, your bosses are already paying you as little as they think they can get away with. If they get a new cost associated with your employment, they may try to raise their prices. They may look for other areas where they can cut costs. They may even decide that they can no longer afford to employ you. But what they won’t do is suddenly realize that they could have been paying you thousands of dollars less all along without you quitting. (They may even be forced to accept a lower profit rate, though that’s something “most economists” seem to exclude a priori.)
But that’s not even the real problem with Vox’s calculator. Sanders’ plan is based on using a new payroll tax to pay for a single-payer healthcare system, which will relieve businesses of the considerable burden of paying for employee healthcare. Since just about everyone agrees that single-payer is cheaper than what we have now (including Ezra Klein, before Sanders started running against Clinton on a single-payer platform), in theory business as a whole should come out ahead. But certainly you need to take into account that business would be getting a big break on expenses at the same time that it’s getting a new tax, right?
No, Vox thinks you don’t need to take that into account. From the calculator’s FAQ: “The Tax Policy Center’s model does not include spending programs and thus can only show the effects of tax changes.”
Imagine a website—maybe one that seems to have a pronounced pro-Sanders tilt—creating a “Benefits Calculator” that promises to tell you how each candidate’s benefits plan affects you. The calculator guesstimates how much your employer will save with a single-payer plan and, using the same dubious economics, implies that that savings is money in your bank account. What about your employer’s big tax hike? It’s a benefits calculator—it can’t show the effect of tax changes!
Ezra Klein would be the first to say that a website that constructed a machine for telling people that Bernie Sanders would give them thousands of dollars was engaging in partisan hackery. Yet when Vox does the same thing in reverse, it’s data-driven journalism. Or something.
http://fair.org/home/ezra-klein-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-tax-calculator/
EmperorHasNoClothes
(4,797 posts)and the number it gave me was utter bullshit.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I'm not being snarky. I'd like to assess what the impact of his plans would have on me. I'm willing to pay a bit more in taxes, but I am not willing to take it in the shorts.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)to include state and federal exemptions and give you an accurate figure.
Not that I'm aware of and I did not feel you were being snarky, there are fair
questions, understandably...so no worries. 
Cobalt Violet
(9,976 posts)If you supported it stfu when you have to pay for it.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)affluence a suburban 'just enough to feel smug' sort of nest egg and income. They often posture as being very upset at one or two aspects of the system but after they off gas a bit over a protest they want to be seen as 'supporting' they swiftly revert to their natural state and pitch the wonders of the Establishment and Status Quo.
It's all about their money, of which there is not really enough to be stressed about. A level of wealth that makes you fear losing the wealth, what a worthless sort of wealth that is. The point of having some is to not have to worry.
vintx
(1,748 posts)These fools are too stupid to realize they're being used. Their greed makes them happy to get screwed by the super wealthy, just so long as they don't have to share with the poor.
May they all rot in hell.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)libtodeath
(2,892 posts)With attacks on FDR and the New Deal and defense of Walmart and Sachs nothing surprises anymore.
Myrina
(12,296 posts).... but since they're all on the crazy train, this cycle she's supporting Clinton.
She posted some 'analytical' bullshit on her FB page that essentially said Trump, Cruz and Clinton will give you a tax break (here's the math) blah blah but under Sanders, your taxes will 'balloon tremendously'.
Being an accountant, it would be logical for her to consider that reducing/eliminating spending in other programs would pay for what the Sanders platform is proposing, but .... no. It's all the 'tax increase boogeyman'.
SMDH.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Nice retirement package.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)I do have concerns how folks with tax exposure will feel about this. As a former salesperson I can attest to the difficulty of separating folks from their money. Some folks would rather be separated from their kin.
That's also the paradox of democracy. Folks wants government services. They just don't want to pay for them. They believe somebody else should.
boobooday
(7,869 posts)Tyranny!
I'm sure she and George Clooney can commiserate over a really fine bottle of wine and whatever his personal chef can scrape off the bottom of the 200 sq foot fridge. That $353k should keep her safe and prosperous.
EmperorHasNoClothes
(4,797 posts)That is, I'll be paying a 2.2% medicare for all tax that I'm not paying now.
But that will be way more than offset by not having to pay insurance premiums, copays, coinsurance, lower drug prices, etc.