Economy Bernie's Tax Plan: enter your income and information and find out how much you'd save

I don't think the data being calculated is correct. Bernie has only provided baselines and these could very well change. I don't believe someone who makes 24k a year will spend 2,300 vs someone who makes 90k 5,000 or so.
 
It’s a link to a website. Just don’t give your information I guess?
whats your mothers maiden name? Just want to know for a friend........;)

This is pretty shady shit. Keep your head on a swivel.
 
History itself says that, yes, generalized healthcare is far cheaper than the current US system, and higher taxes on the rich don't drive them out, the ability to re-invest tax growth is spectacularly good for the economy. So, you must be saying Americans are far too dumb or corrupt to pull off something everyone else in the world has shown to work. Fair enough.
I'm saying that the rich aren't going to keep their interests in the US if it means losing their profits. I've been crystal clear about that. Feel free to just read my posts. No need to put words in my mouth.
This fantasy you people have that the rich are just going to pay for all your stuff is just that- a fantasy. It might work for 2 or 3 years but then suddenly you'll see this corporation decide to head for China and that one realizes they can still make a profit by outsourcing to Indonesia. Then Ford makes more cars in Mexico. etc etc etc
Are you going to tell me straight faced that that is not the more likely outcome than them deciding they don't care about profit anymore? Not only we will lose industry, we will ensure that no business will even consider America as a base.
You guys are only thinking about the instant gratification. You're not considering whether or not this is sustainable.
 
Last edited:
If you don’t pay the employers part it isn’t your expense. In this version you do start paying their part. That will make your check smaller. I’m sure your employer will just give you that cost as a raise though.....

why not just raise the cap on Medicaid a tad
The economic research says that you're paying it because your employer is calculating it into your wage. So, while you get a salary of X, the company calculates your salary as X+healthcare premium. It's why wages haven't risen as fast as expected over the last 40 years. This is, amusingly, the other side of the "Medicare isn't free" argument that people frequently bring up when discussing government health insurance. They're often doing the same thing when it comes to the employer side of their premiums. They think about their costs as part they pay and pretend the part that the employer pays isn't a cost that they're bearing.
 
Yes but it's a cost savings unlikely to be passed on.

The same argument could be said for someone working remotely, the employer should pay them more by passing on the savings of not having an on-site employee, but in reality remote workers are willing to take less.

Same with pensions. When companies replaced awesome pensions with crappy 401k, did everyone automatically get raises to offset their new inferior retirement plan?
I don't know what you mean by a cost savings. It's not. It's very expensive to the employer. When people complain about their premiums going up, so is the portion the employer pays directly. There are no "savings". There's only the cost the employee is aware of and the cost that they remain ignorant of.

It's been shown over and over again that the increased cost of the portion of health insurance premiums paid by the employer has a negative impact on the wage paid to the employee. Basically, instead of giving the employee a decent raise, the employer pays the higher premium out of that money and gives the employee a minimal raise or no raise at all. But no one is saving any money.
 
Surely these numbers are reliable and the quality of care won’t diminish at all...
 
I go back and forth in my own head on the issue. if it cost me $3k more a year and everyone had Healthcare, that's a good thing.
My concern is keeping the standard of Health Care that we (insured people) have now.

Won't work the same.
Not with the amount of money doctors make currently (more than canafian drs for ex)

not with the amount paid out in med malpractice lawsuits (canada caps the amount)

Not with the same timeline of care (2 weeks vs 8 weeks in the UK for shoulder surgery)

I just think it's not possible to get the exact same benefit w/ Medicaid for all. Something has to give.
These are all legit concerns, I don't dispute that.

I have very good healthcare myself, 70% employer provided. And the quality of care if we ever went to m4a (that's still long time away no matter who's potus, let's be honest) is a concern.

But, I mean, insurance is still a PITA (I have two kids, so I'm guaranteed to hit the OOP max and deal with all the stupid prescription pricing, aka, find out what it costs after you pick it up). I can afford it, luckily. Other's mileage may vary.

To me, aside from the overall well being of everyone, the most intriguing benefit is taking the onus off of employers/employment. Talk about freeing up the workforce to change jobs, test the waters, start their own business, whatever. Game changer. It works everywhere else, so I'm more than willing to give it a go. Biggest drawback, as always (and my main agreement with naysayers), is our gov't is run by a bunch of clowns. So they'll probably fvck it up.
 
As much as i hate Bernie Sanders non-sense, anything is better than Mitch McConnell.
 
Eliminating Health Tax “Expenditures”

The proposal would ban employer-provided insurance and repeal the deduction for health care, increasing taxes on businesses by over $3 trillion over a decade.

Right it's increasing the employer Medicare tax but employers also wouldn't have to pay the bulk of their employees premiums.

Your assertion was that the premiums are tax deductible but the Medicare tax isn't.

That's not true, both are tax deductible
 
Something does have to give....

If i have to wait 6 extra weeks for a non-vital medical procedure so 60,000 people don't die and 500,000 don't go bankrupt...ill choose the latter....

And just like that.... I'm back to fuck em.
Sorry guys. I was almost there. ;)
 
Yes but it's a cost savings unlikely to be passed on.

The same argument could be said for someone working remotely, the employer should pay them more by passing on the savings of not having an on-site employee, but in reality remote workers are willing to take less.

Same with pensions. When companies replaced awesome pensions with crappy 401k, did everyone automatically get raises to offset their new inferior retirement plan?

There is no cost savings to be passed as employers instead of subsidizing their employees health plan directly will now pay the government 7.5% tax based on that employees income to pay for MCA and won't be able to write that off.

This sucks for both employers and employees alike.
 
These are all legit concerns, I don't dispute that.

I have very good healthcare myself, 70% employer provided. And the quality of care if we ever went to m4a (that's still long time away no matter who's potus, let's be honest) is a concern.

But, I mean, insurance is still a PITA (I have two kids, so I'm guaranteed to hit the OOP max and deal with all the stupid prescription pricing, aka, find out what it costs after you pick it up). I can afford it, luckily. Other's mileage may vary.

To me, aside from the overall well being of everyone, the most intriguing benefit is taking the onus off of employers/employment. Talk about freeing up the workforce to change jobs, test the waters, start their own business, whatever. Game changer. It works everywhere else, so I'm more than willing to give it a go. Biggest drawback, as always (and my main agreement with naysayers), is our gov't is run by a bunch of clowns. So they'll probably fvck it up.


i wouldn't mind giving it a go.. seeing if it works. maybe I'm on the wrong side of it.
But, if it doesn't work can't put the toothpaste back in.
It's going to happen eventually I just hope they get it right when they do.
 
So I put in 137k and 6k health cost (guessing this range for HC, I don't think we pay too much) and it says I'd save $1,496 a year. Sounds tempting, but the risk might not be worth it for me. People who pay more money in HC would benefit more I think.

So out of curiosity, I checked the HC for my wife and I and it's closer to 10k than 6k if you consider everything. So according to this data pull, we'd be saving $5,496 a year. Now I'm feeling the Bern. I'll take these savings, go for it.
 
I don't know what you mean by a cost savings. It's not. It's very expensive to the employer. When people complain about their premiums going up, so is the portion the employer pays directly. There are no "savings". There's only the cost the employee is aware of and the cost that they remain ignorant of.

It's been shown over and over again that the increased cost of the portion of health insurance premiums paid by the employer has a negative impact on the wage paid to the employee. Basically, instead of giving the employee a decent raise, the employer pays the higher premium out of that money and gives the employee a minimal raise or no raise at all. But no one is saving any money.
That's because there are often penalties to offer more money to employees if they forego insurance.
In my 15 years of HR/recruiting experience, that's never been an option.

Yes, companies will take any excuse to pocket more while charging more
 
Love that the people who are made to pay a lot more are ignored. I owe also $10,000 more under this plan
 
Anyone can put up a chart. Doesn't mean that's what would actually happen. If we've learned anything from the last few years or so, it's that Politicians are incompetent and corrupt and will say anything to get elected.

First of all, that's way more than I was paying before Obamacare. By a large margin. I also don't believe those numbers would hold and I don't believe the money grab would stop there. Look at our "free" public schools. Every fucking year we add new taxes to "help our schools!!!" to our property taxes and nothing ever improves. Remember how the Lottery was going to be SO much money that we'd never have to raise taxes for our Schools again? Whatever happened to that?

Single Payer HC would be a constant excuse to raise taxes (for the children!!!!) and our quality of care will plummet. In every country that has SPHC there is a two tier system. The Govt. system which is crap and the "pay cash for services" system that the rich will use and get better care. The politicians behind this will absolutely fuck things up beyond repair and they'll steal the money and use it for other things. Don't believe it people. It's complete bullshit.
 
The economic research says that you're paying it because your employer is calculating it into your wage. So, while you get a salary of X, the company calculates your salary as X+healthcare premium. It's why wages haven't risen as fast as expected over the last 40 years. This is, amusingly, the other side of the "Medicare isn't free" argument that people frequently bring up when discussing government health insurance. They're often doing the same thing when it comes to the employer side of their premiums. They think about their costs as part they pay and pretend the part that the employer pays isn't a cost that they're bearing.
I 100% promise if this is passed you will not get a commensurate raise
 
That's because there are often penalties to offer more money to employees if they forego insurance.
In my 15 years of HR/recruiting experience, that's never been an option.

Yes, companies will take any excuse to pocket more while charging more
What penalties are you referring to? The only one I can think of is the SS/medi contribution. But I don't do HR so if there's other stuff, I'd be curious.
 
I 100% promise if this is passed you will not get a commensurate raise
Why would I get a raise? I don't have a boss.

The question is would my staff get a raise? Probably not from me. However, if they're no longer paying health insurance premiums and I'm just paying a tax, it might be a wash for me and a gain for them.
 
Back
Top