Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

hill2016

(1,772 posts)
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:27 PM Oct 2015

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

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

151 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sanders supporters, do you still support him if he asks you to help pay for his policy platform? (Original Post) hill2016 Oct 2015 OP
Yep. TDale313 Oct 2015 #1
Me too. aidbo Oct 2015 #4
Yes. n/t winter is coming Oct 2015 #2
Bernie has been most frugal with his campaign money, I expect he will do the same as President. Uncle Joe Oct 2015 #3
At first I read that as "frivolous pantsuits" n/t TexasBushwhacker Oct 2015 #97
Funny, you have the same question as Fox Business Channel! portlander23 Oct 2015 #5
"It's scary!" She literally called it scary. aidbo Oct 2015 #9
We're all scared of the socialism! portlander23 Oct 2015 #14
Oh, is that was FBC stands for? I thought it was Fucking Bullshit Channel. n/t winter is coming Oct 2015 #47
You are correct Art_from_Ark Oct 2015 #150
I think rich people should be made to pay Cheese Sandwich Oct 2015 #6
so basically your answer is no hill2016 Oct 2015 #10
You can't get blood out of a stone Cheese Sandwich Oct 2015 #26
I admire you for your frankness. Those who don't have the means would of course still_one Oct 2015 #106
Or even upper middle class. Like me. SusanCalvin Oct 2015 #37
Yes, and of course he does talk about how it will be paid for. HERVEPA Oct 2015 #7
nope he doesn't hill2016 Oct 2015 #13
You are beginning to sound like Donald Trump Rosa Luxemburg Oct 2015 #27
so no answer? hill2016 Oct 2015 #55
would I pay more in taxes for single payer healthcare? ibegurpard Oct 2015 #8
I said hill2016 Oct 2015 #19
if higher taxes are going to programs I support ibegurpard Oct 2015 #36
What happened in Vermont was the reverse magic beans story of not being able to afford TheKentuckian Oct 2015 #82
Thank you for the explanation. nt SusanCalvin Oct 2015 #90
Most welcome TheKentuckian Oct 2015 #128
As long as he asks nicely Jan Bunson Oct 2015 #11
YES. YES. YES. But Bernie isn't going to Autumn Oct 2015 #12
so if he says he has to hill2016 Oct 2015 #16
I don't think Universal Health Care can work Jan Bunson Oct 2015 #34
Yes I would be happy to pay more in taxes for universal health care. Did you know the Autumn Oct 2015 #42
universal healthcare has got to start with reducing costs questionseverything Oct 2015 #65
and hill2016 Oct 2015 #69
Because when you have universal healthcare.. Kentonio Oct 2015 #91
that is why it has got to be single payer and a federal effort questionseverything Oct 2015 #111
hm.. hill2016 Oct 2015 #133
i am not advocating that they "cannot" treat anyone but that they must treat all questionseverything Oct 2015 #136
Yes. LoveIsNow Oct 2015 #15
ok thanks hill2016 Oct 2015 #18
Bernie is anything but vague in how he will pay for his programs (visit his website to learn), plus cpompilo Oct 2015 #17
so hill2016 Oct 2015 #22
Sure. I had to help pay for the ACA. aikoaiko Oct 2015 #20
As long as he doesn't ask us to also pay Hillary's campaign debts Fumesucker Oct 2015 #21
I did contribute & would've been better off wiping my ass with the money just to know how it felt. TheKentuckian Oct 2015 #83
He has specifically said how he is going to pay for it Rosa Luxemburg Oct 2015 #23
then hill2016 Oct 2015 #24
He has explained this Rosa Luxemburg Oct 2015 #28
And some have refused to listen..... daleanime Oct 2015 #41
They want you to waste time explaining things Aerows Oct 2015 #50
No doubt that that is part of it... daleanime Oct 2015 #54
when and where? hill2016 Oct 2015 #58
When and where what? n/t Aerows Oct 2015 #62
OOohhh... it's a fight! Fawke Em Oct 2015 #95
when and where? hill2016 Oct 2015 #57
like when and where? hill2016 Oct 2015 #56
........ daleanime Oct 2015 #73
Financial transaction taxes, Aerows Oct 2015 #45
so hill2016 Oct 2015 #63
You do know that he's the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, I assume? hedda_foil Oct 2015 #77
Yes, I will pay more. SDjack Oct 2015 #25
You bet!!!! newfie11 Oct 2015 #29
Do I want to pay more taxes? Of course not. SusanCalvin Oct 2015 #30
Yes. The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 2015 #31
Amen.... daleanime Oct 2015 #35
to be fair hill2016 Oct 2015 #53
I disagree that it is a fair assessment. Aerows Oct 2015 #61
So hill2016 Oct 2015 #66
Hmm. Aerows Oct 2015 #75
Yep, this one is attempting to waste our time, I think also. SusanCalvin Oct 2015 #92
"This one" posed a legitimate question. That you don't like it doesn't make it a "waste of time". BlueCaliDem Oct 2015 #115
The original question was legit, SusanCalvin Oct 2015 #118
Well, duh.... daleanime Oct 2015 #32
Yes. Matariki Oct 2015 #33
but remember hill2016 Oct 2015 #67
Whether I'm "behind" is not my only basis for judgment. SusanCalvin Oct 2015 #119
Sanders addressed how to pay for both those programs as well. Matariki Oct 2015 #147
Yes Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #38
Yes tblue Oct 2015 #39
Yes - Between Savings On The MIC And Single Payer - Suspect Neutral Impact For The Middle Class cantbeserious Oct 2015 #40
If its so bad in Denmark, why are they the happiest country on earth? Try something else litlbilly Oct 2015 #43
YES SarasotaDem Oct 2015 #44
A President Sanders can not raise taxes. Agnosticsherbet Oct 2015 #46
Health care for all, free college. Those are investments. Autumn Oct 2015 #52
Then question asks how Much will each citizen be willing to pay Agnosticsherbet Oct 2015 #71
thanks for your viewpoint hill2016 Oct 2015 #72
The idea of a graduated tax system sound like it could be a good idea. Autumn Oct 2015 #79
If the 2020 election see a majority of steps controled by Democrats Agnosticsherbet Oct 2015 #81
BINGO! Congress *not* the president sets tax laws... BlueCaliDem Oct 2015 #114
Easy, he'll just tell big pharma to "cut... cut it out" problem solved! n/t That Guy 888 Oct 2015 #48
Yes. hifiguy Oct 2015 #49
Your fallacy is in thinking that we are not paying for extraordinary corporate welfare now. GoneFishin Oct 2015 #51
^^ Thread win. n/t winter is coming Oct 2015 #59
This ^^^ Melurkyoulongtime Oct 2015 #87
You just made this thread worth the time. SusanCalvin Oct 2015 #93
+1000000000 azmom Oct 2015 #120
Why don't you ask the Canadians whether sadoldgirl Oct 2015 #60
I already passive massive taxes on a $200,000 year income and get nothing for it. Bread and Circus Oct 2015 #64
ok hill2016 Oct 2015 #68
That was the question of the OP. Obviously you are not paying attention. nt Mnemosyne Oct 2015 #85
from the math I have done I will save money even with icreased tax proposals. Bread and Circus Oct 2015 #89
Yes. plus5mace Oct 2015 #70
Yes!!!! JRLeft Oct 2015 #74
Absolutely! bkkyosemite Oct 2015 #76
I don't tend to support taxing Social Security benefits but have long supported an increase in the TheKentuckian Oct 2015 #78
^THIS^ - especially last paragraph. nt SusanCalvin Oct 2015 #94
Yes, like evey other advanced nation. Only right wingers think they can free stuff and no one has to sabrina 1 Oct 2015 #80
I absolutely would pay more tax to have single payer healthcare, PatrickforO Oct 2015 #84
Yes! n/t woodsprite Oct 2015 #86
Yeah. Glad to. Ken Burch Oct 2015 #88
Absolutely. For example, the no tuition is a tax on the very wealthy, and Bernie's major platform EndElectoral Oct 2015 #96
Yes, I am willing to pay more income tax TexasBushwhacker Oct 2015 #98
Everyone would pay for it AgingAmerican Oct 2015 #99
How about cutting corporate welfare? Do you assume he will be against that Motown_Johnny Oct 2015 #100
If Sanders agenda is implemented it will cost much more money from everyone. Denmark is not known Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #101
Yes. pinstikfartherin Oct 2015 #102
i absouletly support a progressive tax plan that funds policies that put people ahead of CentralMass Oct 2015 #103
He would not get anything close to his proposal through Congress Evergreen Emerald Oct 2015 #104
Yup JackInGreen Oct 2015 #105
Just stopping by from Fox News, are ya? 99Forever Oct 2015 #107
You mean Our Tax$ being used fredamae Oct 2015 #108
Yes. peacebird Oct 2015 #109
Of course. Android3.14 Oct 2015 #110
End corporate welfare. TM99 Oct 2015 #112
Of course. I'm a socialist. Lizzie Poppet Oct 2015 #113
Funny, we found trillions to invade and slaughter Iraq, didn't we? Arugula Latte Oct 2015 #116
It all depends on the tax, the purpose and the amount Armstead Oct 2015 #117
Democratic Socialism is alive and well. This is a no-brainer. nt edgineered Oct 2015 #121
Yeap, bunch of upper middle class or near working rich folk say yes. Most working poor would say no! uponit7771 Oct 2015 #122
You forgot one thing about the tax rate in Denmark... BooScout Oct 2015 #123
thanks for your reminder hill2016 Oct 2015 #134
And you accuse US of using rightwing talking points??? senz Oct 2015 #124
basically your answer to my question is "no" hill2016 Oct 2015 #135
Reading comprehension problems? You got it wrong. senz Oct 2015 #140
So a 59% tax on every dollar over Kang Colby Oct 2015 #125
"..financial transaction tax is also bad idea because it has been shown to lower overall tax ... GoneFishin Oct 2015 #129
No. Kang Colby Oct 2015 #130
I trust your ability to find quotes from high frequency traders who will say anything to continue GoneFishin Oct 2015 #131
Yes, I didn't think you could refute my point. n/t Kang Colby Oct 2015 #132
sadly hill2016 Oct 2015 #142
I agree. Kang Colby Oct 2015 #144
So, how much are you willing to continue to pay for the Hunger Games. Kalidurga Oct 2015 #126
OP? Do you think we are so stupid we don't know how the system works? nt Todays_Illusion Oct 2015 #127
Yes. frylock Oct 2015 #137
Yes. It seems "we'll be taxed like Denmark" is the lie of the day. Vinca Oct 2015 #138
sorry hill2016 Oct 2015 #143
I'm saying Bernie has elaborated on how he will pay for his programs and it doesn't include Vinca Oct 2015 #151
Is there a candidate whose policies I WON'T have to pay for? cherokeeprogressive Oct 2015 #139
yes. nt redwitch Oct 2015 #141
Yes (nt) bigwillq Oct 2015 #145
I assume that unless I'm voting for a voodoo economist, I will have to pay for additional spending. Warren DeMontague Oct 2015 #146
Yes. I want higher taxes in exchange for those social programs. Chan790 Oct 2015 #148
Why not? We're already paying for Hillary's policy platform brentspeak Oct 2015 #149

Uncle Joe

(57,822 posts)
3. Bernie has been most frugal with his campaign money, I expect he will do the same as President.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:32 PM
Oct 2015

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.

 

portlander23

(2,078 posts)
14. We're all scared of the socialism!
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:43 PM
Oct 2015

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.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
150. You are correct
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:20 AM
Oct 2015

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"

still_one

(91,592 posts)
106. I admire you for your frankness. Those who don't have the means would of course
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 12:51 PM
Oct 2015

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

 

HERVEPA

(6,107 posts)
7. Yes, and of course he does talk about how it will be paid for.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:33 PM
Oct 2015

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

 

hill2016

(1,772 posts)
13. nope he doesn't
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:42 PM
Oct 2015

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?

ibegurpard

(16,685 posts)
8. would I pay more in taxes for single payer healthcare?
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:35 PM
Oct 2015

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

(1,772 posts)
19. I said
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:44 PM
Oct 2015

higher taxes without net benefits.

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

Look at what happened to Vermont.

ibegurpard

(16,685 posts)
36. if higher taxes are going to programs I support
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:52 PM
Oct 2015

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

(24,823 posts)
82. What happened in Vermont was the reverse magic beans story of not being able to afford
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 10:12 PM
Oct 2015

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.

 

Jan Bunson

(35 posts)
11. As long as he asks nicely
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:42 PM
Oct 2015

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

(44,616 posts)
12. YES. YES. YES. But Bernie isn't going to
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:42 PM
Oct 2015

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

(1,772 posts)
16. so if he says he has to
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:43 PM
Oct 2015

you would be happy to pay more?

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

 

Jan Bunson

(35 posts)
34. I don't think Universal Health Care can work
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:52 PM
Oct 2015

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

(44,616 posts)
42. Yes I would be happy to pay more in taxes for universal health care. Did you know the
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:55 PM
Oct 2015

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

(9,629 posts)
65. universal healthcare has got to start with reducing costs
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:17 PM
Oct 2015

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

(1,772 posts)
69. and
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:23 PM
Oct 2015

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

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
91. Because when you have universal healthcare..
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 10:38 AM
Oct 2015

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

(9,629 posts)
111. that is why it has got to be single payer and a federal effort
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 01:32 PM
Oct 2015

the only mandate should be doctors treat all

you asked,

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

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

soulless jerks?

<shrugs>

 

hill2016

(1,772 posts)
133. hm..
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 09:52 AM
Oct 2015

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

(9,629 posts)
136. i am not advocating that they "cannot" treat anyone but that they must treat all
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 11:27 AM
Oct 2015

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

(356 posts)
15. Yes.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:43 PM
Oct 2015

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.

cpompilo

(323 posts)
17. Bernie is anything but vague in how he will pay for his programs (visit his website to learn), plus
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:44 PM
Oct 2015

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

(1,772 posts)
22. so
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:45 PM
Oct 2015

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?

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
21. As long as he doesn't ask us to also pay Hillary's campaign debts
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:45 PM
Oct 2015
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

(24,823 posts)
83. I did contribute & would've been better off wiping my ass with the money just to know how it felt.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 10:35 PM
Oct 2015

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.

 

hill2016

(1,772 posts)
24. then
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:47 PM
Oct 2015

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?

daleanime

(17,796 posts)
41. And some have refused to listen.....
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:55 PM
Oct 2015

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

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
50. They want you to waste time explaining things
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:04 PM
Oct 2015

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.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
45. Financial transaction taxes,
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:58 PM
Oct 2015

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

(1,772 posts)
63. so
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:16 PM
Oct 2015

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

(16,360 posts)
77. You do know that he's the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, I assume?
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:45 PM
Oct 2015

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.

SusanCalvin

(6,592 posts)
30. Do I want to pay more taxes? Of course not.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:50 PM
Oct 2015

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

The Velveteen Ocelot

(114,644 posts)
31. Yes.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:50 PM
Oct 2015

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.

 

hill2016

(1,772 posts)
53. to be fair
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:06 PM
Oct 2015

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

(39,961 posts)
61. I disagree that it is a fair assessment.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:11 PM
Oct 2015

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

(1,772 posts)
66. So
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:18 PM
Oct 2015

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

(39,961 posts)
75. Hmm.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:40 PM
Oct 2015

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

SusanCalvin

(6,592 posts)
92. Yep, this one is attempting to waste our time, I think also.
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 10:43 AM
Oct 2015

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

(15,438 posts)
115. "This one" posed a legitimate question. That you don't like it doesn't make it a "waste of time".
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 01:42 PM
Oct 2015

But you know that.

SusanCalvin

(6,592 posts)
118. The original question was legit,
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 02:36 PM
Oct 2015

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.

Matariki

(18,775 posts)
33. Yes.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:51 PM
Oct 2015

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

(1,772 posts)
67. but remember
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:20 PM
Oct 2015

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

(6,592 posts)
119. Whether I'm "behind" is not my only basis for judgment.
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 02:44 PM
Oct 2015

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

Matariki

(18,775 posts)
147. Sanders addressed how to pay for both those programs as well.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 05:51 PM
Oct 2015

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.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
46. A President Sanders can not raise taxes.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:00 PM
Oct 2015

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

(44,616 posts)
52. Health care for all, free college. Those are investments.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:05 PM
Oct 2015

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

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
71. Then question asks how Much will each citizen be willing to pay
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:27 PM
Oct 2015

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

Autumn

(44,616 posts)
79. The idea of a graduated tax system sound like it could be a good idea.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:58 PM
Oct 2015

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

(11,619 posts)
81. If the 2020 election see a majority of steps controled by Democrats
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 10:03 PM
Oct 2015

It will change.

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

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
114. BINGO! Congress *not* the president sets tax laws...
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 01:40 PM
Oct 2015

...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?

GoneFishin

(5,217 posts)
51. Your fallacy is in thinking that we are not paying for extraordinary corporate welfare now.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:05 PM
Oct 2015

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.

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)
60. Why don't you ask the Canadians whether
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:11 PM
Oct 2015

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

(9,454 posts)
64. I already passive massive taxes on a $200,000 year income and get nothing for it.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:17 PM
Oct 2015

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.

TheKentuckian

(24,823 posts)
78. I don't tend to support taxing Social Security benefits but have long supported an increase in the
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:49 PM
Oct 2015

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.


sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
80. Yes, like evey other advanced nation. Only right wingers think they can free stuff and no one has to
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 10:01 PM
Oct 2015

pay for it.

PatrickforO

(14,469 posts)
84. I absolutely would pay more tax to have single payer healthcare,
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 10:39 PM
Oct 2015

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.

EndElectoral

(4,213 posts)
96. Absolutely. For example, the no tuition is a tax on the very wealthy, and Bernie's major platform
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 11:26 AM
Oct 2015

centers around income inequality.

TexasBushwhacker

(19,883 posts)
98. Yes, I am willing to pay more income tax
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 12:25 PM
Oct 2015

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.

 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
100. How about cutting corporate welfare? Do you assume he will be against that
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 12:42 PM
Oct 2015

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

(30,058 posts)
101. If Sanders agenda is implemented it will cost much more money from everyone. Denmark is not known
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 12:46 PM
Oct 2015

for low taxes.

pinstikfartherin

(500 posts)
102. Yes.
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 12:47 PM
Oct 2015

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

(15,265 posts)
103. i absouletly support a progressive tax plan that funds policies that put people ahead of
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 12:48 PM
Oct 2015

corporations.

Evergreen Emerald

(13,067 posts)
104. He would not get anything close to his proposal through Congress
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 12:51 PM
Oct 2015

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.

fredamae

(4,458 posts)
108. You mean Our Tax$ being used
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 12:57 PM
Oct 2015

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!

 

TM99

(8,352 posts)
112. End corporate welfare.
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 01:33 PM
Oct 2015

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.

BooScout

(10,406 posts)
123. You forgot one thing about the tax rate in Denmark...
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 05:09 PM
Oct 2015

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

(1,772 posts)
134. thanks for your reminder
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 09:54 AM
Oct 2015

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

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
124. And you accuse US of using rightwing talking points???
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 05:31 PM
Oct 2015


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.
 

senz

(11,945 posts)
140. Reading comprehension problems? You got it wrong.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 01:57 PM
Oct 2015

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

(1,941 posts)
125. So a 59% tax on every dollar over
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 05:37 PM
Oct 2015

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

(5,217 posts)
129. "..financial transaction tax is also bad idea because it has been shown to lower overall tax ...
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 08:28 PM
Oct 2015

... 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

(1,941 posts)
130. No.
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 09:45 PM
Oct 2015

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

(5,217 posts)
131. I trust your ability to find quotes from high frequency traders who will say anything to continue
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 09:55 PM
Oct 2015

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

(1,941 posts)
144. I agree.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 05:17 PM
Oct 2015

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

(14,177 posts)
126. So, how much are you willing to continue to pay for the Hunger Games.
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 07:10 PM
Oct 2015

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?

 

hill2016

(1,772 posts)
143. sorry
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 05:12 PM
Oct 2015

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

(50,086 posts)
151. I'm saying Bernie has elaborated on how he will pay for his programs and it doesn't include
Tue Oct 20, 2015, 07:11 AM
Oct 2015

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

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
146. I assume that unless I'm voting for a voodoo economist, I will have to pay for additional spending.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 05:27 PM
Oct 2015

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

(20,176 posts)
148. Yes. I want higher taxes in exchange for those social programs.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 06:12 PM
Oct 2015

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

(18,290 posts)
149. Why not? We're already paying for Hillary's policy platform
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 06:18 PM
Oct 2015

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,

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Sanders supporters, do yo...