Sanders supporters, do you still support him if he asks you to help pay for his policy platform?

[hill2016]

One of the biggest criticism of Sanders is that he's pushing for a large expansion in government spending (free public college, universal health care, expanded Social Security, etc.) without specifying exactly how he's going to pay for it.

It's an absolutely fair question to ask whether people who support universal health care are actually willing to help pay for it. Look at Vermont where universal health care was ultimately too expensive for people to swallow. Look at people complaining about the Cadillac tax or how their ACA plan costs more because of benefits they don't use (by design, ACA gets the insured to subsidize the uninsured, men to subsidize women and the young to subsidize the old). Seems that people want universal health care in principle but not so much the paying part.

Sure he makes some vague references to a financial transaction tax (but of course the devil is in the details such as is he going to subject pension plans and 401k's to the tax? is the tax going to raise as much money as he thinks?) and raising the FICA cap (how does that change the benefits to people who pay more when they retire? Why does he have a donut hole below $250k?) and increased taxes on the 1% or corporations.

So, let's assume that Sanders has already risen taxes significantly on the rich and corporations and finds out that he needs more money. if Sanders proposes paying for his platform through something that affects you directly (you have to pay significantly higher taxes without getting net benefits), will you still support him? Let's say you're nearing retirement and he wants to pay for free college by taxing your pension or 401-k or Social Security. Or let's say you're a fresh graduate and he wants to pay for universal health care or expanded Social Security by raising your federal income taxes.

Here's the tax rates for Denmark
https://www.cfe-eutax.org/taxation/personal-income-tax/denmark

1 USD is about 6.5 DKK.

0%: Up to 41 000 DKK
37.48%: 41 001 – 279 800
43.48%: 279 801 – 335 800
59%: 335 801 and over

[TDale313]

1. Yep.

[aidbo]

4. Me too.

[winter is coming]

2. Yes. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

3. Bernie has been most frugal with his campaign money, I expect he will do the same as President.

Hillary on the other hand has wasted U.S. tax dollars on frivolous pursuits, I expect that trend to remain the same as well.


Thanks for the thread, hill.

[TexasBushwhacker]

97. At first I read that as "frivolous pantsuits" n/t

[portlander23]

5. Funny, you have the same question as Fox Business Channel!

Fox Business Channel Terrified by Socialist Hellscape foretold by the Popularity of Bernie Sanders

Yes

[aidbo]

9. "It's scary!" She literally called it scary.

[portlander23]

14. We're all scared of the socialism!

And progressive taxes!

And Franklin Delano Roosevelt!

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by
monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

Who will pay for all of this Franklin?? Health care is a right? Education is a right? No one can get elected talking like that.

[winter is coming]

47. Oh, is that was FBC stands for? I thought it was Fucking Bullshit Channel. n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

150. You are correct

However, FCC rules dictate that they can't use those first two words in their official name. So they had to use the euphemism, "Fox Business"

[Cheese Sandwich]

6. I think rich people should be made to pay

[hill2016]

10. so basically your answer is no

[Cheese Sandwich]

26. You can't get blood out of a stone

[still_one]

106. I admire you for your frankness. Those who don't have the means would of course

say yes, unless they are an idiot tea bagger. Those who have the means I don't think would mind if it were equitable and fair share

[SusanCalvin]

37. Or even upper middle class. Like me.

If the money was going to the actual people, no problem.

[HERVEPA]

7. Yes, and of course he does talk about how it will be paid for.

You are being disingenuous, but I'm sure you know that.

[hill2016]

13. nope he doesn't

what rates does he want to raise federal tax rates and FICA? What about corporate tax rates? capital gains taxes?

What rates does he want to charge a financial transaction tax? How much does he think he can raise from that?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

27. You are beginning to sound like Donald Trump

[hill2016]

55. so no answer?

like I said, Bernie's plan to pay is very vague.

[ibegurpard]

8. would I pay more in taxes for single payer healthcare?

Absolutely. Because then I wouldn't be paying premiums to an insurance provider for the privilege of paying out of pocket for medical expenses until I hit thousands of dollars worth.

[hill2016]

19. I said

higher taxes without net benefits.

It's not a sacrifice if it saves you money.

Look at what happened to Vermont.

[ibegurpard]

36. if higher taxes are going to programs I support

Then it's a benefit to me whether if affects me personally or not. There are intangible costs and benefits to all policy as well.

[TheKentuckian]

82. What happened in Vermont was the reverse magic beans story of not being able to afford

to save around 40% of the systemic cost of health care.

The fable goes like this, we are spending 5 billion a year and that spending is increasing at multiples of inflation but we cannot afford to spend 3 billion a year instead.

Perhaps greed and avarice distort vision too much to see what is plain so let me put it in terms those chasing and gripping that dollar bill can get.

You are currently pulling down 30k a month, why don't you want to bring in 50k?

Same net ratio plus you can reduce that inflation rate much easier with control of the purse strings.

What happened in Vermont? Politicians with a lack of real want to and in many cases playing a con out because there is no possible way they thought costs would be substantially lower and in fact it had to be a shock to study this out and come to expect the monumental savings they report so there is no way there was any actual intent to do a damn thing but play out a cynical string to kill the idea.
No fucking way was what now cost 5 billion a year going to come out of anything like present tax revenues.

The rationalization is beyond absurd. This is a conversation with delusional and greedy people and why reasonable folks pretend this argument can see sane with a ground based telescope I may never know.

[SusanCalvin]

90. Thank you for the explanation. nt

[TheKentuckian]

128. Most welcome

[Jan Bunson]

11. As long as he asks nicely

and uses the money for the things that we need

then YES by all means

Or he could just run deficits like every other president does...

[Autumn]

12. YES. YES. YES. But Bernie isn't going to

tax anyone's pension, anyone's 401-k or anyone's Social Security to pay for free college or universal healthcare. I'm pretty fucking positive Bernie wouldn't raise anyone's federal income taxes under a certain income to pay for universal health care or expanded Social Security. Nice try but no cigar.

[hill2016]

16. so if he says he has to

you would be happy to pay more?

Remember, Vermont tried to get universal health care but it didn't work...

[Jan Bunson]

34. I don't think Universal Health Care can work

unless the whole country does it at once...well maybe California could go it alone...

a small state like Vermont could never handle it on their own.

[Autumn]

42. Yes I would be happy to pay more in taxes for universal health care. Did you know the

subsidies paid to private health insurance corporations under the ACA for those who qualify are paid for by taxing the American people? I would not be happy to pay more taxes while Wall Street and billionaires pay less. I would also not be happy to pay more taxes for her war with Iran that she's beating the drums on while still paying off the last war Hillary voted for. Where is the net benefit there?
Would you be happy to pay for more wars? Did you know money for endless wars does come from taxing the American taxpayer?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251695497

You remember President Reagan’s line about the Soviets: Trust but verify? My approach will be distrust and verify.” She also explicitly threatened Iran with war if they fail to comply: “I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon, and I will set up my successor to be able to credibly make the same pledge.” She even depicted the Iran Deal as making a future war with Iran easier and more powerful:

easier for who? Will you be happy to pay more taxes for a war with Iran? Those wars don't pay for themselves you know.

[questionseverything]

65. universal healthcare has got to start with reducing costs

the federal gov't is plenty big enough to negotiate with the suppliers and get better deals....one small state is not


why is it when citizen need something, it all has to be paid for but when the mic wants another war or the nsa wants to spy on us deficits are no problem

huhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh

huh?

[hill2016]

69. and

health care providers are free to reject the federal government's prices. Why are many doctors and networks not accepting Medicare/Medicaid?

[Kentonio]

91. Because when you have universal healthcare..

It becomes a system the provider cannot usually afford to just opt out of. Sure you can still have private healthcare running along side a universal system (like the UK), but the number of people using it is vastly reduced.

[questionseverything]

111. that is why it has got to be single payer and a federal effort

the only mandate should be doctors treat all

you asked,

Why are many doctors and networks not accepting Medicare/Medicaid?

//////////////////

soulless jerks?

<shrugs>

[hill2016]

133. hm..

you would advocate mandating who doctors can and cannot treat and what payments they accept?

How exactly does that help Sanders defend against Socialist/Communist attacks from the right?

[questionseverything]

136. i am not advocating that they "cannot" treat anyone but that they must treat all

should docs not treat someone because they are of color,or the wrong religion,or social class? i would think not so why draw the line at the ability to pay?

i am guessing there would still be a purely commercial medical field dealing with cosmetic surgeries for doctors that are only docs to make a fortune....

socialism and communism are not the same

socialism's time concerning medical has come, we were ready when obama was elected and we are more ready now

some things are just too important for capitalism

[LoveIsNow]

15. Yes.

That's the point. We're not a bunch of babies who want free stuff. I think everybody should contribute to the government and everybody should benefit from it.

[hill2016]

18. ok thanks

[cpompilo]

17. Bernie is anything but vague in how he will pay for his programs (visit his website to learn), plus

there is little expectation that he will lead us into war in Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Republic of Congo, Somalia, Sudan, Venezuela, Russia, China...

[hill2016]

22. so

what rates does he want to increase federal income taxes to? Corporate tax rates? Capital gains taxes? How much does he think he can raise from financial transaction taxes?

[aikoaiko]

20. Sure. I had to help pay for the ACA.

[Fumesucker]

21. As long as he doesn't ask us to also pay Hillary's campaign debts

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/25/obama.clinton.debt/index.html?iref=newssearch

June 25 , 2008

(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama has asked top contributors to help former rival Sen. Hillary Clinton retire the debt from her failed presidential campaign, an Obama campaign source said.

Obama and Clinton ran a protracted race for the Democratic presidential nomination that left Clinton with a campaign debt of more than $22 million when she bowed out this month.

About $12 million of that amount is money the senator from New York loaned to the campaign herself.

Obama asked members of his National Finance Committee to contribute to Clinton's campaign if they were so inclined, but he did not direct them to do so, the Obama campaign source said Tuesday.

[TheKentuckian]

83. I did contribute & would've been better off wiping my ass with the money just to know how it felt.

I still can't believe I gave my hard earned and often short money to a dishonest, power hungry multi millionaire to pay off sleazy hacks like Mark Penn to lie and fling shit for months on end.

One of the stupidest and sappiest moments of my life. Eating Ramen for Obama was silly but any sacrifice for a vanquished Clinton was batshit crazy. I have no idea what I was on to be tripping like that.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

23. He has specifically said how he is going to pay for it

[hill2016]

24. then

what rates does he want to increase federal income taxes to? Corporate tax rates? Capital gains taxes? How much does he think he can raise from financial transaction taxes?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

28. He has explained this

multiple times

[daleanime]

41. And some have refused to listen.....

multiple times. It would be too inconvenient for them to do anything else.

[Aerows]

50. They want you to waste time explaining things

They don't want a conversation - they want you to sit and educate them while they pretend they don't understand so you aren't doing other things.

The more time of yours that they waste, the better. That's why I put that addendum at the bottom of my post below. If anyone wants to learn about the financial industry, there are PLENTY of places to get information, and nobody here is interested in offering a free education in Economics except Bernie.

[daleanime]

54. No doubt that that is part of it...

Nothing we can do but roll up our sleeves and work on!

[hill2016]

58. when and where?

[Aerows]

62. When and where what? n/t

[Fawke Em]

95. OOohhh... it's a fight!

Outside, after school!!!1!!1!!

[hill2016]

57. when and where?

[hill2016]

56. like when and where?

[daleanime]

73. ........

[Aerows]

45. Financial transaction taxes,

specifically HFT transaction taxes are both needed, imho, and will provide quite a surge in revenue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/opinion/the-case-for-a-tax-on-financial-transactions.html?_r=0

While some believe that it will discourage HFT (Which the average investor should want because they get screwed by it due to firms making big buys or big sells before they take care of their own investors to manipulate the prices higher), it won't really change things. It's too much easy money for big firms. They will gripe and complain about it, the same way they gripe about everything that prevents a penny from going into their pockets, but they will still do business the same way.

Before you ask a bunch of questions about HFT and transaction taxes designed to derail the discussion, I suggest you research it yourself. I've researched it myself, and I don't have time to educate every Tom, Dick and Hillary supporter that wants to waste my time and the time of everybody on this board. There are OCEANS of information out there.

[hill2016]

63. so

the article cites $185b over 10 years. Let's call it $20b a year.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file

Tuition at public colleges is $70b a year. What about food and lodging (remember Hillary says she doesn't think it should be free at the debates but apparently Sanders does)? Let's call it another $20 - 30b.

You're still at least $70b short.

QED.

[hedda_foil]

77. You do know that he's the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, I assume?

That means three things.:

1. The Senate Dems consider him an important member of their Democratic caucus, to the point that when they take back the Senate, he would be committee chairman.

2. He fully understands the budgeting process from the inside, and he also understands the pushed pull you of negotiating the details ... which is what you are asking for.

3. He isn't a bullshitter like some politicians.

[SDjack]

25. Yes, I will pay more.

[newfie11]

29. You bet!!!!

[SusanCalvin]

30. Do I want to pay more taxes? Of course not.

Can I afford to? Yes. Would I be willing to if I were satisfied the money would be used well? ABSOLUTELY.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. Yes.

The way I figure is, these things have to be paid for one way or another. To get health insurance, for example, you pay premiums to a private insurance company. If we had single payer insurance we'd pay taxes to the government (as for Medicare). Although the ACA has improved some things, private insurance is still extremely expensive for many people. For example, a relative of mine pays premiums of about $800 per month for himself and his wife, and there is a deductible of $10,000 apiece. So he'd be out of pocket about $30,000 before the insurance company pays a single dime. Unless the two of them incur more than $20,000 in medical expenses in a year, the premiums they pay are pure profit for the insurance company. A lot of that money goes to pay the exorbitant salaries of CEOs and other executives, and to satisfy the demands of investors. The administrative costs of private insurance run about 20%. In contrast, the administrative costs of Medicare are more like 4%, and there are no greedy CEOs demanding enormous salaries. Since we're going to pay for health insurance anyhow, would you rather pay for it through taxes, or would you rather write a check to a rich CEO?

As for free college paid by small taxes on financial transactions: I'm fine with that, too. Right now many students graduate with crushing student loan debt to the point where they can't buy houses or cars or start families. This situation is getting worse and worse, and threatens to create another financial disaster like the crash of 2008. Even if it doesn't, having thousands of people hopelessly in debt is a huge drag on the economy. And some bright kids can't go to college at all because of the expense. An educated society is a good thing and I don't mind paying more in taxes to accomplish that goal. The happiest, most contented countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries, which have high taxes, free college, and free or low-cost health care. Norway and Sweden also have more billionaires per capita than any country but the United States, so their brand of "socialism" seems to be working well. There's a strong safety net but you can still get rich. The difference is that their billionaires didn't get rich at the expense of everybody else.

[daleanime]

35. Amen....

[hill2016]

53. to be fair

It's not true the premiums are pure profit for the insurance company. They are used to offset someone else's claims.

So based on your figure, you could save 16% by moving from private insurance to Medicare? Many doctor/networks are not taking Medicare because the reimbursement rates are too low. Is it worthwhile to disrupt the entire insurance market and remove choice from everybody in order to save 16%?

On the argument on student loans being a drag on the economy, wasn't the already spent in the economy? For example, if I buy a car, whether or not I take out a loan, the money is spent and goes to the car dealership, salesman, distributor, and manufacturer? So similarly the money that the student pays to the college is already spent in the economy.

Many colleges have need-blind admissions policy. Not to say that they will graduate debt free but at least they will have the opportunity to go to college.

[Aerows]

61. I disagree that it is a fair assessment.

Why in the hell do we have to pay for the overhead of a vast administrative network designed specifically to deny claims until you prove yourself relentless enough to continue fighting through the red tape?

That's a large part of what you are paying for.

[hill2016]

66. So

you save 16% of your premium, at most. On the other hand, many doctors and networks won't want to accept Medicare. And many people would rather pay the extra 16% to get into their doctor/network of their choice.

[Aerows]

75. Hmm.

I'd help you, but I don't have time to explain the insurance industry, capitalism, the financial industry and economics to you.

[SusanCalvin]

92. Yep, this one is attempting to waste our time, I think also.

Had a look at journal, immediately found two contradictory posts. (Pundits matter, pundits don't matter, depending on whether you're a Hillary or Bernie supporter.) If even I can see it, you know it's blatant.

Well, I was here only as a sleepytime activity last night, so not much of mine was wasted.

[BlueCaliDem]

115. "This one" posed a legitimate question. That you don't like it doesn't make it a "waste of time".

But you know that.

[SusanCalvin]

118. The original question was legit,

And many people answered it in the affirmative. A lot of the follow-up from the OP was pointed out as having been previously answered in many places.

See post 50, for example.

[daleanime]

32. Well, duh....

Spent a $100 and save a $1,000?

No problem here.

[Matariki]

33. Yes.

I think what I'm paying in health insurance, including what my employer pays, were diverted to single payer it would not only cover me but also be enough to cover a bit extra.

[hill2016]

67. but remember

you also have to help pay towards free college and expanded social security.

So you're still behind even if you save on health insurance premiums.

[SusanCalvin]

119. Whether I'm "behind" is not my only basis for judgment.

As someone else in the thread said, I don't think I'm the only person in the world.

[Matariki]

147. Sanders addressed how to pay for both those programs as well.

Social Security - raise the cap. Easy solution.

College tuition - tax on wall street speculation. (I'm not clear on the exact details of this)

When the US economy was strong the tax rate on the very wealthy was much higher than it is now. And there were programs to help people buy houses and afford college. Then Reagan came along.

Here's a chart:


And here is some reading material for you:

http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates

Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.

Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).

Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.

[Duckhunter935]

38. Yes

[tblue]

39. Yes

The world doesn't revolve around me.

[cantbeserious]

40. Yes - Between Savings On The MIC And Single Payer - Suspect Neutral Impact For The Middle Class

eom

[litlbilly]

43. If its so bad in Denmark, why are they the happiest country on earth? Try something else

[SarasotaDem]

44. YES

and yes

[Agnosticsherbet]

46. A President Sanders can not raise taxes.

Only Congress can raise taxes, and that bill would have to be started in the House. I don't think Congress will ever pass such bills.

I am willing to pay more taxes to pay for health care for all, free college.

[Autumn]

52. Health care for all, free college. Those are investments.

Investments in our futures, our children's futures. What's there to complain about?

[Agnosticsherbet]

71. Then question asks how Much will each citizen be willing to pay

I think they are great ideas. I don't think we will elect a Congress that would pass Sanders agenda paid only by the 1%. I think it would be wrong for us to do that. If Americans want those programs we each should all pay a share of those programs, a graduated tax system. The wealthy would pay more, but so would ever one else.

The block on such a great system remains the same. Congress must pass it. I don't see that happening

[hill2016]

72. thanks for your viewpoint

[Autumn]

79. The idea of a graduated tax system sound like it could be a good idea.

I don't think Congress will ever do anything worth a damn in what's left of my lifetime. Hard to imagine a more useless body of wasted flesh.

[Agnosticsherbet]

81. If the 2020 election see a majority of steps controled by Democrats

It will change.

Electing an ideal candidate for President will not fix the system.

[BlueCaliDem]

114. BINGO! Congress *not* the president sets tax laws...

...and in order for that to happen under a President Sanders Admin, he'd have to have LOTS of friends in Congress willing to push his spending bills through - or - his supporters will have to work ten times harder than the Obama Coalition to get more Liberals in the House...and, realistically speaking, I just don't see that happening.

If President Obama couldn't get the Congress he needed in order to push his progressive agenda through with the Black, Latino, and Asian demographics behind him, what hope do we have that Sanders revolutionaries can?

[That Guy 888]

48. Easy, he'll just tell big pharma to "cut... cut it out" problem solved! n/t

[hifiguy]

49. Yes.

And his reordering of spending priorities will be a massive help.

[GoneFishin]

51. Your fallacy is in thinking that we are not paying for extraordinary corporate welfare now.

Let's have some corporate "welfare reform" for once.

And yes, I would gladly make my health insurance premium payment to a single payer government program in higher taxes and know that I am not being hit with $5000 out of pocket expense so that some insurance company CEO can have his annual $20,000,000 bonus.

[winter is coming]

59. ^^ Thread win. n/t

[Melurkyoulongtime]

87. This ^^^

[SusanCalvin]

93. You just made this thread worth the time.

[azmom]

120. [phone]

[sadoldgirl]

60. Why don't you ask the Canadians whether

they are happy with their system? They gave up
private insurance, and seem very happy about
their government system, at least 95% of them.
Yet, they have to buy private insurance, if they
travel to the US, because our system is so
over the top expensive.

[Bread and Circus]

64. I already passive massive taxes on a $200,000 year income and get nothing for it.

At least with Bernie I could get 3 kids through college tuition free and a public option insurance which is likely to be cheaper.

That is a massive massive upgrade for me. Right now I get jack shit for what I pay.

[hill2016]

68. ok

but you'll be paying even more in taxes to get the free tuition and public insurance.

[Mnemosyne]

85. That was the question of the OP. Obviously you are not paying attention. nt

[Bread and Circus]

89. from the math I have done I will save money even with icreased tax proposals.

[plus5mace]

70. Yes.

In exchange for the money I save in taxes I receive a broken society. It's not a good bargain.

[JRLeft]

74. Yes!!!!

[bkkyosemite]

76. Absolutely!

[TheKentuckian]

78. I don't tend to support taxing Social Security benefits but have long supported an increase in the

payroll tax if raising the cap doesn't cover it or Federal would be fine too, it all spends the same. I think we should do a half a percent or so off top for long term care protection

What are these net benefits I won't see? What are you getting at?

I'm smelling a stale stink of the fee for service champions who are always the upper class, rich, and the wealthy trying to get over because it works out way cheaper to avoid the taxes and redistribute the cost of society downward while they benefit the most in the process.

The top 10% has 90% of the wealth and income, we pay for these things now and at a per capita rate that tends to lead the world, the money is there easy and would not affect quality of life for the top of the pyramid one bit either.

No shit there are complaints about the right wing worldview "Cadillac Tax", how hard are working people who traded big chunks of wages for comprehensive policies supposed to take it on the chin? Can you even give any estimate of the amount of wages converted to nothing these folks are being hit with?

A much bigger one than the top tier is ever going to see even as they have gobbled up all the gains in productivity for decades and profit from their own crashes.

Plus, paying collectively allows substantial system wide savings which frees up resources for other purposes which creates value in the economy while diversifying it and freeing somewhat the folks at and near the bottom from oppressive access, no access, substandard access, or fake access of paying for shit they cannot afford to use and/or drowned in crippling debt for basic fundamentals like health care, care of our most vulnerable...the young and the non independent elderly, and education.

No, it is not that we cannot afford these universal essentials but rather that the people with all the money want to hoard it and don't give a solitary fuck what happens to the drowning people they pride themselves on standing on top of and pushing down.

[SusanCalvin]

94. ^THIS^ - especially last paragraph. nt

[sabrina 1]

80. Yes, like evey other advanced nation. Only right wingers think they can free stuff and no one has to

pay for it.

[PatrickforO]

84. I absolutely would pay more tax to have single payer healthcare,

free college tuition at state colleges, a stronger Social Security.

Absolutely. I already pay out the nose for shitty rationed healthcare. I might as well get something good if I'm gonna pay all that.

No, Bernie's got the right idea. Especially about starting to tax those corporations, splitting up the huge banks, reinstating Glass Steagall, overturning Citizens United. I'm also all for ending the drug war, reforming our 'justice' system and de-privatizing prisons.

Bernie's the guy.

[woodsprite]

86. Yes! n/t

[Ken Burch]

88. Yeah. Glad to.

A decent society can't come cheap.

[EndElectoral]

96. Absolutely. For example, the no tuition is a tax on the very wealthy, and Bernie's major platform

centers around income inequality.

[TexasBushwhacker]

98. Yes, I am willing to pay more income tax

Why?

Because a single payer system would be more efficient and cover everyone. A single payer system that can negotiate payments to doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, would be the only game in town. Unless a healthcare provider only wanted private payers, they would have no choice but to keep costs down.

Because a tiny (probably less than 1%) tax on securities transactions would raise billions of dollars and reduce speculation.

Because Sanders is not a pawn of the Military Industrial Complex, he would support diplomacy over military intervention, thus saving lives AND dollars.

Because things like job programs, infrastructure , EDUCATION and raising the minimum wage actually put money back into the economy. When more people have good paying jobs, more people pay income and FICA taxes. More people can spend money on taxable , generating more sales tax revenues for states and counties. More people can buy homes and cars. More people would get off food stamps, EIC and subsidized housing, which really just takes taxpayer dollars to subsidize low paying corporations.

[AgingAmerican]

99. Everyone would pay for it

That's how reality works in the non right wing world.

[Motown_Johnny]

100. How about cutting corporate welfare? Do you assume he will be against that

as a way to help pay for his programs? Or cuts to the Military. Would a Pres. Sanders be against that?



But to answer your question, yes. I will pay a higher tax rate if it helps get the nation on the right track. Also if it helps me get more out of my government. With (R)s you pay less but you get nothing. I would rather pay a reasonable rate and get some benefit from it.

[Thinkingabout]

101. If Sanders agenda is implemented it will cost much more money from everyone. Denmark is not known

for low taxes.

[pinstikfartherin]

102. Yes.

Just had an argument with my grandmother over this yesterday. She started freaking out about "free stuff" and how someone has to pay for it. I calmly told her that I am willing to have my taxes increase for these things. I looked at the last single payer bill introduced in congress and my taxes would go up 5.5% under that particular bill. I'm cool with that. Free college wouldn't help me now, but it will help my nephews. Better childcare will help my step sister so she can actually get a decent job.

I'm willing to pay for these things, whether I ever use them or not. I want to better our country for everyone.

[CentralMass]

103. i absouletly support a progressive tax plan that funds policies that put people ahead of

corporations.

[Evergreen Emerald]

104. He would not get anything close to his proposal through Congress

Clinton could not get healthcare through Congress. Obama did, but only the republican version. There is no way, realistically, any of his proposals would be considered.

[JackInGreen]

105. Yup

I'm ok with this.

[99Forever]

107. Just stopping by from Fox News, are ya?

How's that stinkbait thing working for ya?

[fredamae]

108. You mean Our Tax$ being used

for us all in Infrastructure Improvements? Better Health Care Access? Better Schools? Restoring Social Security Trust Fund? Clean Air/Water/Fuel R&D? Public Education for those who seek it? And More, More, More?
And even for others in need get a hand Up? Hell yes, I'm ok with that! Raise my (And Theirs) damned taxes for That!

[peacebird]

109. Yes.

[Android3.14]

110. Of course.

Stupid question.

[TM99]

112. End corporate welfare.

Rearrange the spending priorities.

Increase taxes on those that can afford it.

And yes, I have no problems with my taxes going towards the things that actually benefit us all instead only those at the very top.

[Lizzie Poppet]

113. Of course. I'm a socialist.

No problem putting my money where my mouth is.

[Arugula Latte]

116. Funny, we found trillions to invade and slaughter Iraq, didn't we?

[Armstead]

117. It all depends on the tax, the purpose and the amount

[edgineered]

121. Democratic Socialism is alive and well. This is a no-brainer. nt

[uponit7771]

122. Yeap, bunch of upper middle class or near working rich folk say yes. Most working poor would say no!

[BooScout]

123. You forgot one thing about the tax rate in Denmark...

Denmark also has a 25% VAT rate.....so taxes are in actuality much higher than the link in your OP when everything is taken into account....just trying to be accurate here.

[hill2016]

134. thanks for your reminder

to be fair, we would also have to compare with State sales tax as well.

[senz]

124. And you accuse US of using rightwing talking points???

Oooo ... such hypocrisy. Of the distinctly "shameless" variety.

What you're forgetting is that Bernie supporters are real Democrats, real liberals, not DINOS. We do not resent paying taxes that go toward making America a good country for ALL people. Remember? We care about minorities, We care about the poor.

Forgetting the "people of color" meme you tried to use against Bernie and his supporters? Oops!

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive ...

You're also ignoring the fact that Bernie has said he would raise taxes on the wealthy. Before you dive into that one with another bogus accusation, try to remember that Bill Clinton wiped out the deficit largely by raising taxes on the wealthy.

Nice try, Mr. Whiplash.

[hill2016]

135. basically your answer to my question is "no"

you want others to pay for the taxes?

[senz]

140. Reading comprehension problems? You got it wrong.

Go back and read what I wrote, hill2016.

I said that I, like all real Democrats, do not mind paying more taxes to create a decent, livable society for all of us.

But I reminded you that Bernie, like your beloved Bill Clinton, is not talking about taxes on the little people -- so your OP is deliberately misleading.

Considering who you support, is is not surprising that you would do that.

[Kang Colby]

125. So a 59% tax on every dollar over

51K USD.

Anyone who works for a living and lives outside of their parent's basement isn't going to support this rubbish. The financial transaction tax is also bad idea because it has been shown to lower overall tax receipts and would hurt my portfolio. Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country has become ask what you can do with other peoples' money. Sickening.

I can't wait for super Tuesday so we don't have to listen to this stuff anymore.

[GoneFishin]

129. "..financial transaction tax is also bad idea because it has been shown to lower overall tax ...

... receipts and would hurt my portfolio. "

1) Bullshit

2) If your portfolio is hurt by a fraction of one penny tax per trade then you are doing it wrong.

[Kang Colby]

130. No.

1) This is well researched and there are a litany of academic and government sources regarding the impact of FTTs. Feel free to read about Sweden's experience. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax
This gentleman does a good job of summarizing the issues and citing additional sources. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/07/22/bernie-sanders-doesnt-have-a-case-for-a-financial-transactions-tax-it-would-lose-money/

2) Bernie's proposal is a 50 basis point transaction tax. This would impact assets held within pension funds, the rebalancing required by index funds, the buying and selling of funds and would hurt market makers who provide liquidity and promote efficient price discovery. Even FTT supporters find Bernie's 50 basis point tax ridiculous: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/opinion/the-case-for-a-tax-on-financial-transactions.html


In summary:

[GoneFishin]

131. I trust your ability to find quotes from high frequency traders who will say anything to continue

their computerized sucking of tiny bits of other peoples money, millions of times per second, reaping obscene profits for sitting on their asses, while not actually making anything of value.

I'll skip your links. But thanks anyway.

[Kang Colby]

132. Yes, I didn't think you could refute my point. n/t

[hill2016]

142. sadly

Bernie supporters often can't answer direct questions on the "who pays" parts.

[Kang Colby]

144. I agree.

Politics aside an FTT is just bad policy. I think the outrage over Wall Street is understandable, but let's not go after the middle class retirement funds and structural market mechanisms because we are pissed at big banks. Re-enacting Glass-Steagall is a better public policy option.

[Kalidurga]

126. So, how much are you willing to continue to pay for the Hunger Games.

How many more dead homeless is acceptable to you. How many more minds are you willing to sacrifice to McJobs when they could be in college or trade schools learning something that will take them out of poverty? How many more wars for oil are you willing to fund?

[Todays_Illusion]

127. OP? Do you think we are so stupid we don't know how the system works? nt

[frylock]

137. Yes.

[Vinca]

138. Yes. It seems "we'll be taxed like Denmark" is the lie of the day.

[hill2016]

143. sorry

but why not?

Denmark believes that everyone contributes and everyone benefits.

Are you saying that we should have the socialist programs of Denmark without the socialist taxes?

[Vinca]

151. I'm saying Bernie has elaborated on how he will pay for his programs and it doesn't include

average people paying taxes at the rate of 60%. But, it's a new day. What's the lie du jour?

[cherokeeprogressive]

139. Is there a candidate whose policies I WON'T have to pay for?

[redwitch]

141. yes. nt

[bigwillq]

145. Yes (nt)

[Warren DeMontague]

146. I assume that unless I'm voting for a voodoo economist, I will have to pay for additional spending.

Now, I'd love it if SOME of the costs of increased public works and social safety net spending could be offset by, say, cuts to the Military Industrial complex or -perish the thought!- ending the drug war that certain candidates (cough. Hillary) simply want to rebrand and throw MORE money at...

but, yes, I understand that a Sanders budget would likely result in increased taxes for me.

[Chan790]

148. Yes. I want higher taxes in exchange for those social programs.

As a member of the 5% but not the 1%, I want my taxes to be higher and a stronger social safety net because I believe the result is a more fair society...but more importantly, a more secure and stable society.

[brentspeak]

149. Why not? We're already paying for Hillary's policy platform

We've paid for her support of wars: Iraq and Afghanistan

We've paid for her support of Wall Street bailouts: TARP

and we've paid for her support of job offshoring and outsourcing: myriad of "free trade" legislation, Tata Consulting,