Biweekly Paycheck after Tax change with Each Candidate

P

Paulnhbtx

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
Except Kasich

this is based on each candidate's tax plan:

WC5kX7L.jpg
 
Last edited:
Pretty meaningless, but it's good clickbait.
 
Is there a link?
 
Paulnhbtx said:
how is it meaningless
Click to expand...

It's just a number, without full context it's hard to know what they represent. The site knows that though, and that's why it's a provocative image.
 
I have no idea how accurate these figures are but there is one thing that virtually no one in the establishment press is making clear when comparing Bernie's tax plan to those of his rivals.

Any potential tax increases he is proposing that would affect the working or middle class will ONLY come into play in the context of a "medicare for all" (universal) health care system.

In other words, working and middle class people would see the total elimination of health premiums and deductibles from their annual household budget. With their potential tax increases being significantly less than those eliminated costs.

It is a tax increase that actually puts them ahead in terms of net income.
 
Bernies -150 on the 55,000 dollar bracket is ridiculous, and is going to cause a lot of problems for people.

After taxes and health insurance, as is, that becomes like a 700-800 dollar check. Take an extra 150 out of that and that's going to be devastating.
 
mattw4466 said:
Bernies -150 on the 55,000 dollar bracket is ridiculous, and is going to cause a lot of problems for people.

After taxes and health insurance, as is, that becomes like a 700-800 dollar check. Take an extra 150 out of that and that's going to be devastating.
Click to expand...

As Ultra pointed out, it replaces health insurance.

I mean, we shouldn't exaggerate. There will be winners and losers, and it's not just "the rich" who would be losers (and I'd guess that costs would be higher than projected). But there would be more people coming out ahead in the deal than not.

BTW, those kinds of calculations apply to everyone. The GOP candidates aren't just giving away free money. The plans come with a loss of services and especially a huge increase in debt, which is paid for by the public. The net effect isn't to grow total income--it's just to redistribute it to the rich (just as Sanders' plan doesn't shrink total income--it just redistributes it downward). It's striking how radical the alleged "conservative" plans are.
 
Jack V Savage said:
As Ultra pointed out, it replaces health insurance.

I mean, we shouldn't exaggerate. There will be winners and losers, and it's not just "the rich" who would be losers (and I'd guess that costs would be higher than projected). But there would be more people coming out ahead in the deal than not.

BTW, those kinds of calculations apply to everyone. The GOP candidates aren't just giving away free money. The plans come with a loss of services and especially a huge increase in debt, which is paid for by the public. The net effect isn't to grow total income--it's just to redistribute it to the rich (just as Sanders' plan doesn't shrink total income--it just redistributes it downward). It's striking how radical the alleged "conservative" plans are.
Click to expand...

I find the characterization of Sanders as a strong social democrat somewhat dubious. According to Sanders, his plan for SS would on average increase benefits about $65 a month. That's not going to make a huge difference to wealth inequality.
 
Sanders' plan is too conservative to implement the corrections our nation requires.
 
sabretruth said:
I find the characterization of Sanders as a strong social democrat somewhat dubious. According to Sanders, his plan for SS would on average increase benefits about $65 a month. That's not going to make a huge difference to wealth inequality.
Click to expand...

Two things: 1) No offense, but that kind of attitude toward people trying to make progress is a major obstacle toward progress (for example, http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...ht-thing-do-maybe-not-much-political-winner); 2) That's still more than he can reasonably hope to get, even in the unlikely event that Democrats win both houses of Congress (because that would require winning in districts they usually don't win, which would mean more conservative candidates). Realistically, the best Sanders could hope for is pretty much what Clinton has been proposing.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Two things: 1) No offense, but that kind of attitude toward people trying to make progress is a major obstacle toward progress (for example, http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...ht-thing-do-maybe-not-much-political-winner); 2) That's still more than he can reasonably hope to get, even in the unlikely event that Democrats win both houses of Congress (because that would require winning in districts they usually don't win, which would mean more conservative candidates). Realistically, the best Sanders could hope for is pretty much what Clinton has been proposing.
Click to expand...

My statement is just as much a complaint against Sanders as it is a comment on how far right Republicans have pushed the dialogue; people with annual incomes $33k a year getting checks that total $780 a year, while some people can retire in their 40s with over a billion dollars is not some far-left vision.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sabretruth said:
My statement is just as much a complaint against Sanders as it is a comment on how far right Republicans have pushed the dialogue; people with annual incomes $33k a year getting checks that total $780 a year, while some people can retire in their 40s with over a billion dollars is not some far-left vision.
Click to expand...

Sure, but wouldn't Sanders be the very last person you want to complain about in American politics? Just like leftists that seem to range from indifferent to almost angry about the big MW increase in CA. Like, if that's your reaction to progress, what incentive is there for anyone to take the political risks necessary to get more of it? Some people are pissed off because they oppose it, and the people who should like it don't care. That's how we get a right-ward drift.
 
mattw4466 said:
Bernies -150 on the 55,000 dollar bracket is ridiculous, and is going to cause a lot of problems for people.

After taxes and health insurance, as is, that becomes like a 700-800 dollar check. Take an extra 150 out of that and that's going to be devastating.
Click to expand...

Yeah - I don't understand how people aren't getting this about his plans. Maybe it's just that Hillary hasn't really exposed it enough... she should. That's actually a significant sum of money for people taking anywhere from 50 to 100k. Those salary levels only net anywhere from 1100 to about 1900 give or take depending on state tax rates and healthcare costs... so yes, if your bi-weekly paycheck goes from 1300 to 1100 or 1800 to 1600... again that's all rough but it actually begins to amount to annoying amounts and the first thing it will impact is peoples' eating, dining and partying habits so it could affect the services industry and thus impact people making low wages in kitchens, bars..etc.

So if you're making 75k a year, you're paying an extra 6k a year (again - give or take)... that is a non-trivial sum of money for someone who may also be paying 1200 a month in rent or mortgage.

The problem I am having with what Bernie wants to do is that a lot of Americans in professions making salary from 200 to 400k are doctors, lawyers or people in finance and they work their butts off and all of their income is taxed at a personal income rate - NOT cap gains (despite the common misperception of people working in finance). The higher taxation should really be on personal capital gains in the order of millions - NOT on Americans who aren't even breaking the bank with their bi-weekly pay.

Now, I'm not saying someone who's making 250k a year in salary isn't probably living comfortably from a financial standpoint... but it's not some astronomical amount of money anymore... the people really making big bucks are taking home 4-5+ mill a year. $683 ever other week is a substantial chunk if you consider they might have two kids, a mortgage and a car and they're trying to save for retirement. Costs add up quickly when you have things Bernie would call a part of "the American dream." I just can't see how Bernie's plan really makes up the productivity gap that he claims.... so it's sort of a lose lose for people that appear to be making loads of money but really, 75k to 125k isn't nuts, especially if you're living in a city and paying city-rate expenses.

Think about it this way... you went to law school, paid your way, and you have undergrad debt - now you live in a major city... you work 60 hours a week and you pay 1700 in rent to live in a small place... you're making a modest sum of 200k but with some legitimate debt. Bernie is asking you to pay an extra 22k a year (approximately). That's insane because there are a lot of people out there in that situation and they're not the big movers and shakers in the economy driving businesses and stocks - in fact they're just that different from someone making 100k - they're probably not top of the food chain in their company if it's based in a major city.
 
Envious if the republicans get elected in; people should keep more of what they earn.


Bernie's plan is full blown extortion. Taking 6k extra from people making 75k a year is ludicious - especially since the majority of people in that bracket already get health insurance from their employers: health care that in terms of quality, is much greater than a single payer system. Basically forcing the intelligent, educated and successful class to pay more and gain less. If people resented the uneducated, poor and lazy before, they are going to full on loath them if Bernie gets elected.

17k extra taken off from people making 250k???? That old Jew has gone full senile.

Thankfully the odds are against him, and if he miraculously pulls off a win, hopefully he'll keel over from old age.
 
Last edited:
So it's like when obama was going to reduce our health insurance premiums by 2500, right?
ultramanhyata said:
I have no idea how accurate these figures are but there is one thing that virtually no one in the establishment press is making clear when comparing Bernie's tax plan to those of his rivals.

Any potential tax increases he is proposing that would affect the working or middle class will ONLY come into play in the context of a "medicare for all" (universal) health care system.

In other words, working and middle class people would see the total elimination of health premiums and deductibles from their annual household budget. With their potential tax increases being significantly less than those eliminated costs.

It is a tax increase that actually puts them ahead in terms of net income.
Click to expand...
 
west42 said:
So it's like when obama was going to reduce our health insurance premiums by 2500, right?
Click to expand...

Yes. Because Obamacare and medicare for all involve exactly the same approach to insuring the uninsured and to bringing down spiraling health care costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,254,403
Messages
56,645,236
Members
175,331
Latest member
psykro

Share this page

Back
Top