Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan?

[RightBehind]

I'm willing to pay more to get more. I don't mind paying higher taxes so long as it actually goes to good things and not terrible experiments.

[Antonio the Sixth]

My parents (who make around $300k a year) would pay a 62% tax rate under this plan (and around 67% if you include state income taxes). 67% tax rate is insane. No one should be paying that much.

Your parents make $300k a year and you dare to complain? Just be happy you won the lottery of birth while there are people in your country who don't have enough to eat every day.

[Ebsy]

Awful. (normal)

[Smash255]

The jist of Bernie's plan

1.  Federal Tax Rates for those under $250,000 will be the same as current, for those above it, they will see an increase

2.  There would no longer be employer based health insurance so those who currently have it will have a higher taxable income as their costs for health insurance would no longer be tax deductable since they no longer exist.  Those who currently have Health Insurance through exchanges or other non-employer based programs would not see a difference in taxable income due to the fact those Health Insurance costs aren't tax deductable.

3. A 2.2% Medicare for All Tax on taxable income

4.  Capital Gains rates will be the same as current for incomes below $250,000, for incomes above $250,000 they will be at the marginal tax rate

5.  Employers will have a 6.2% payroll tax to fund the Medicare for All.   This would replace the current Employer Contribution Toward Health Insurance

6.  No more Health Insurance Premium's

[Lyin' Steve]

I used this website http://valadian.github.io/SandersHealthcareCalculator/ instead, because apparently it's what the Sanders people want me to use.  It takes the most optimistic view of everything Sanders has proposed, especially his health care plan.

At first, it seemed nice.  I put in my information and distributed my wealth properly and it said I would lose about $2000 a year.

Then I said, ok, let's fast forward a couple years to after I've been putting all my spare cash in a house fund and I want to cash in my mutual funds for the down payment.



Guess I'm not buying that house after all!

[dax00]

Guys, Vox is a lying Hillary hack site. Here's the correct numbers.

http://www.bernietax.com/

[RaphaelDLG]

Of course, the calculator is misleading to the ill-informed because the increase in payroll taxes pays for a medical system that will be at least 33% cheaper and lead to a significantly or maybe even substantially healthier populace.

So for the payroll tax portion of the increase, you are getting something decidedly good in return, unless you are really wealthy.

[Lyin' Steve]

My parents (who make around $300k a year) would pay a 62% tax rate under this plan (and around 67% if you include state income taxes). 67% tax rate is insane. No one should be paying that much.

Your parents make $300k a year and you dare to complain? Just be happy you won the lottery of birth while there are people in your country who don't have enough to eat every day.

Someone has to keep the upper part of the economy going.  Does Bernie want to put Lexus/Mercedes/BMW, high-value home manufacturers and resellers, boat sales, Saks 5th Ave. & Neiman Marcus, artists, classy restaurants, private schools, and other things that the $200K-1M income earners in this country like, out of business?  We live in a global marketplace now, BMW can't sell their cars at lower prices just because Bernie is giving the consumers less money.  They'll lose their profits and go out of business.

Everyone goes "oh those poor rich people!  They can't afford a BMW anymore!"  Come on guys.  If you work hard for twelve years to get your medical practice, and do the stressful and difficult work of being a doctor, don't you deserve a better quality of life?  Should we just run BMW and Mercedes out of town because f**k the rich?  Upper income earners have a right to their (usually hard-earned) livelihoods.  If you say "congratulations, you're rich, now you get to give all that money back to subsidize the poor" then we lose the motivation of becoming rich that inspires people to become entrepreneurs, to get their MBA/JD/MD, etc.

[Averroës Nix]

My parents (who make around $300k a year) would pay a 62% tax rate under this plan (and around 67% if you include state income taxes). 67% tax rate is insane. No one should be paying that much.

Your parents make $300k a year and you dare to complain? Just be happy you won the lottery of birth while there are people in your country who don't have enough to eat every day.

Someone has to keep the upper part of the economy going.  Does Bernie want to put Lexus/Mercedes/BMW, high-value home manufacturers and resellers, boat sales, Saks 5th Ave. & Neiman Marcus, artists, classy restaurants, private schools, and other things that the $200K-1M income earners in this country like, out of business?  We live in a global marketplace now, BMW can't sell their cars at lower prices just because Bernie is giving the consumers less money.  They'll lose their profits and go out of business.

Everyone goes "oh those poor rich people!  They can't afford a BMW anymore!"  Come on guys.  If you work hard for twelve years to get your medical practice, and do the stressful and difficult work of being a doctor, don't you deserve a better quality of life?  Should we just run BMW and Mercedes out of town because f**k the rich?  Upper income earners have a right to their (usually hard-earned) livelihoods.  If you say "congratulations, you're rich, now you get to give all that money back to subsidize the poor" then we lose the motivation of becoming rich that inspires people to become entrepreneurs, to get their MBA/JD/MD, etc.

All of which takes for granted the idea that we need more lawyers, more MBAs, more medical specialists, etc. If higher tax rates encourage more high-achievers to opt for less remunerative careers with larger non-monetary rewards, I do think that we'd be better off.

Whether Sanders tax policy would encourage more MDs to become primary care docs rather than highly-compensated specialists (for example) is another matter, but you're coming at this with a set of assumptions about what is good that I suspect that most of the people you're arguing with do not share.

o/c this isn't even getting into some of the less favorable economic implications of what you're describing (e.g. Baumol's cost disease), or the negative sociological consequences: status anxiety, conspicuous consumption, consumerism, etc.

[RaphaelDLG]

My parents (who make around $300k a year) would pay a 62% tax rate under this plan (and around 67% if you include state income taxes). 67% tax rate is insane. No one should be paying that much.

Your parents make $300k a year and you dare to complain? Just be happy you won the lottery of birth while there are people in your country who don't have enough to eat every day.

Someone has to keep the upper part of the economy going.  Does Bernie want to put Lexus/Mercedes/BMW, high-value home manufacturers and resellers, boat sales, Saks 5th Ave. & Neiman Marcus, artists, classy restaurants, private schools, and other things that the $200K-1M income earners in this country like, out of business?  We live in a global marketplace now, BMW can't sell their cars at lower prices just because Bernie is giving the consumers less money.  They'll lose their profits and go out of business.

Everyone goes "oh those poor rich people!  They can't afford a BMW anymore!"  Come on guys.  If you work hard for twelve years to get your medical practice, and do the stressful and difficult work of being a doctor, don't you deserve a better quality of life?  Should we just run BMW and Mercedes out of town because f**k the rich?  Upper income earners have a right to their (usually hard-earned) livelihoods.  If you say "congratulations, you're rich, now you get to give all that money back to subsidize the poor" then we lose the motivation of becoming rich that inspires people to become entrepreneurs, to get their MBA/JD/MD, etc.

Yeah, but the way taxes work, as I'm sure you know, is that you still get to earn more money as your salary raises, the raises are slower.

No one in their right mind says "aw, f*** it, I'm not going to try to win that promotion, because after taxes I'll only be making $500,000 more a year instead of $1,000,000 more."

[Ebsy]

That higher taxes combined with astronomically high medical school costs would lead to an increase in primary care doctors is one of the most dubious lines of reasoning imaginable.

[Lyin' Steve]

My parents (who make around $300k a year) would pay a 62% tax rate under this plan (and around 67% if you include state income taxes). 67% tax rate is insane. No one should be paying that much.

Your parents make $300k a year and you dare to complain? Just be happy you won the lottery of birth while there are people in your country who don't have enough to eat every day.

Someone has to keep the upper part of the economy going.  Does Bernie want to put Lexus/Mercedes/BMW, high-value home manufacturers and resellers, boat sales, Saks 5th Ave. & Neiman Marcus, artists, classy restaurants, private schools, and other things that the $200K-1M income earners in this country like, out of business?  We live in a global marketplace now, BMW can't sell their cars at lower prices just because Bernie is giving the consumers less money.  They'll lose their profits and go out of business.

Everyone goes "oh those poor rich people!  They can't afford a BMW anymore!"  Come on guys.  If you work hard for twelve years to get your medical practice, and do the stressful and difficult work of being a doctor, don't you deserve a better quality of life?  Should we just run BMW and Mercedes out of town because f**k the rich?  Upper income earners have a right to their (usually hard-earned) livelihoods.  If you say "congratulations, you're rich, now you get to give all that money back to subsidize the poor" then we lose the motivation of becoming rich that inspires people to become entrepreneurs, to get their MBA/JD/MD, etc.

All of which takes for granted the idea that we need more lawyers, more MBAs, more medical specialists, etc. If higher tax rates encourage more high-achievers to opt for less remunerative careers with larger non-monetary rewards, I do think that we'd be better off.

Whether Sanders tax policy would encourage more MDs to become primary care docs rather than highly-compensated specialists (for example) is another matter, but you're coming at this with a set of assumptions about what is good that I suspect that most of the people you're arguing with do not share.

According to NBC, the most highly paid professions are surgeons, doctors, dentists, executives, petroleum engineers, lawyers, architects, pilots and air traffic controllers, pharmacists, and various upper-level managers.  I disagree strongly with your assertion that our brightest and most motivated people should be discouraged from pursuing those career paths.

[Lyin' Steve]

My parents (who make around $300k a year) would pay a 62% tax rate under this plan (and around 67% if you include state income taxes). 67% tax rate is insane. No one should be paying that much.

Your parents make $300k a year and you dare to complain? Just be happy you won the lottery of birth while there are people in your country who don't have enough to eat every day.

Someone has to keep the upper part of the economy going.  Does Bernie want to put Lexus/Mercedes/BMW, high-value home manufacturers and resellers, boat sales, Saks 5th Ave. & Neiman Marcus, artists, classy restaurants, private schools, and other things that the $200K-1M income earners in this country like, out of business?  We live in a global marketplace now, BMW can't sell their cars at lower prices just because Bernie is giving the consumers less money.  They'll lose their profits and go out of business.

Everyone goes "oh those poor rich people!  They can't afford a BMW anymore!"  Come on guys.  If you work hard for twelve years to get your medical practice, and do the stressful and difficult work of being a doctor, don't you deserve a better quality of life?  Should we just run BMW and Mercedes out of town because f**k the rich?  Upper income earners have a right to their (usually hard-earned) livelihoods.  If you say "congratulations, you're rich, now you get to give all that money back to subsidize the poor" then we lose the motivation of becoming rich that inspires people to become entrepreneurs, to get their MBA/JD/MD, etc.

Yeah, but the way taxes work, as I'm sure you know, is that you still get to earn more money as your salary raises, the raises are slower.

No one in their right mind says "aw, f*** it, I'm not going to try to win that promotion, because after taxes I'll only be making $500,000 more a year instead of $1,000,000 more."

Yes they do, because people have competing concerns in life and the risk/reward balance is set at a certain point in each society.  The reason we beat the Soviet Union, and the reason we're always the trendsetters in the global economy, is largely because the risk/reward balance in the United States is set to encourage innovation and risk-taking.  Elon Musk probably wouldn't have taken the risk of starting Tesla Motors if he was risking that much money for the potential of a small future reward.

Let's take glory, effort, and other variables out of the equation for a second and just look at numbers.  Suppose you're thinking about investing $10M to create a company that has a 25% chance of earning you $50M.  The expected ROI is (0.25*50)-10 = $2.5M.  Now suppose Bernie takes 20% of that $50M if you do succeed.  Now your expected ROI is zero and you have no motivation to pursue your company.

The same principle applies to virtually everything in our economy.  If you could sacrifice an extra few hours of your week for a 50% chance of earning a promotion in 18 months that gets you another $50,000 a year, but you value the opportunity cost of losing those few hours of your week at the equivalent of about $30,000 extra per year, then if Bernie suddenly changes your marginal tax rate from 35% to 50% you will decide to spent more time with your kids and family because that's now the most valuable option.  Apply this across the whole economy and innovation and progress are depressed.  Shift the burden to the rich people because "it's time for [my surgeon, manager, and orthodontist] to stop cheating and stealing from the middle class and pay their fair share" and only the upper tier of American innovators, great minds and hard workers will see their output depressed, albeit by a substantially larger amount.

[Antonio the Sixth]

our brightest and most motivated people

[RaphaelDLG]

My parents (who make around $300k a year) would pay a 62% tax rate under this plan (and around 67% if you include state income taxes). 67% tax rate is insane. No one should be paying that much.

Your parents make $300k a year and you dare to complain? Just be happy you won the lottery of birth while there are people in your country who don't have enough to eat every day.

Someone has to keep the upper part of the economy going.  Does Bernie want to put Lexus/Mercedes/BMW, high-value home manufacturers and resellers, boat sales, Saks 5th Ave. & Neiman Marcus, artists, classy restaurants, private schools, and other things that the $200K-1M income earners in this country like, out of business?  We live in a global marketplace now, BMW can't sell their cars at lower prices just because Bernie is giving the consumers less money.  They'll lose their profits and go out of business.

Everyone goes "oh those poor rich people!  They can't afford a BMW anymore!"  Come on guys.  If you work hard for twelve years to get your medical practice, and do the stressful and difficult work of being a doctor, don't you deserve a better quality of life?  Should we just run BMW and Mercedes out of town because f**k the rich?  Upper income earners have a right to their (usually hard-earned) livelihoods.  If you say "congratulations, you're rich, now you get to give all that money back to subsidize the poor" then we lose the motivation of becoming rich that inspires people to become entrepreneurs, to get their MBA/JD/MD, etc.

Yeah, but the way taxes work, as I'm sure you know, is that you still get to earn more money as your salary raises, the raises are slower.

No one in their right mind says "aw, f*** it, I'm not going to try to win that promotion, because after taxes I'll only be making $500,000 more a year instead of $1,000,000 more."

Yes they do, because people have competing concerns in life and the risk/reward balance is set at a certain point in each society.  The reason we beat the Soviet Union, and the reason we're always the trendsetters in the global economy, is largely because the risk/reward balance in the United States is set to encourage innovation and risk-taking.  Elon Musk probably wouldn't have taken the risk of starting Tesla Motors if he was risking that much money for the potential of a small future reward.

Let's take glory, effort, and other variables out of the equation for a second and just look at numbers.  Suppose you're thinking about investing $10M to create a company that has a 25% chance of earning you $50M.  The expected ROI is (0.25*50)-10 = $2.5M.  Now suppose Bernie takes 20% of that $50M if you do succeed.  Now your expected ROI is zero and you have no motivation to pursue your company.

The same principle applies to virtually everything in our economy.  If you could sacrifice an extra few hours of your week for a 50% chance of earning a promotion in 18 months that gets you another $50,000 a year, but you value the opportunity cost of losing those few hours of your week at the equivalent of about $30,000 extra per year, then if Bernie suddenly changes your marginal tax rate from 35% to 50% you will decide to spent more time with your kids and family because that's now the most valuable option.  Apply this across the whole economy and innovation and progress are depressed.  Shift the burden to the rich people because "it's time for [my surgeon, manager, and orthodontist] to stop cheating and stealing from the middle class and pay their fair share" and only the upper tier of American innovators, great minds and hard workers will see their output depressed, albeit by a substantially larger amount.

Economists don't generally find the effect you're describing.  IMO for two reasons:

1) At the high-pressure, professional human beings can only work so many hours a week once you get to 60-80 hour work weeks, and what makes a big difference is how much effort and ingenuity they put into their hours.  So a middle-manager who works 70 hours a week is of course going to have incentive to try to be better and get a somewhat higher paying job as an executive working 70 hours a week (though if he gets NO increase in salary or recognition he probably isn't going to be as motivated).

2) People aren't economic robots who work strictly for the marginal dollar given for each unit of effor6 that they apply.  Do you think Elon Musk gives that much of a sh**t as to whether he has 2.4 billion versus 2.6 billion?  I'm sure he cares somewhat, who wouldn't, but I imagine what matters way, way more for him is being a leader, a success, and a great historic figure who everyone admires and who will be read about in history books someday.

If talented people acted like you say they acted, they wouldn't run for political office, because salaries in political careers, while nice, are nothing like the ones you mentioned.  But ambitious people do run all the time for political office for status, glory, and influence that is as good or better than the money.

[Averroës Nix]

My parents (who make around $300k a year) would pay a 62% tax rate under this plan (and around 67% if you include state income taxes). 67% tax rate is insane. No one should be paying that much.

Your parents make $300k a year and you dare to complain? Just be happy you won the lottery of birth while there are people in your country who don't have enough to eat every day.

Someone has to keep the upper part of the economy going.  Does Bernie want to put Lexus/Mercedes/BMW, high-value home manufacturers and resellers, boat sales, Saks 5th Ave. & Neiman Marcus, artists, classy restaurants, private schools, and other things that the $200K-1M income earners in this country like, out of business?  We live in a global marketplace now, BMW can't sell their cars at lower prices just because Bernie is giving the consumers less money.  They'll lose their profits and go out of business.

Everyone goes "oh those poor rich people!  They can't afford a BMW anymore!"  Come on guys.  If you work hard for twelve years to get your medical practice, and do the stressful and difficult work of being a doctor, don't you deserve a better quality of life?  Should we just run BMW and Mercedes out of town because f**k the rich?  Upper income earners have a right to their (usually hard-earned) livelihoods.  If you say "congratulations, you're rich, now you get to give all that money back to subsidize the poor" then we lose the motivation of becoming rich that inspires people to become entrepreneurs, to get their MBA/JD/MD, etc.

All of which takes for granted the idea that we need more lawyers, more MBAs, more medical specialists, etc. If higher tax rates encourage more high-achievers to opt for less remunerative careers with larger non-monetary rewards, I do think that we'd be better off.

Whether Sanders tax policy would encourage more MDs to become primary care docs rather than highly-compensated specialists (for example) is another matter, but you're coming at this with a set of assumptions about what is good that I suspect that most of the people you're arguing with do not share.

According to NBC, the most highly paid professions are surgeons, doctors, dentists, executives, petroleum engineers, lawyers, architects, pilots and air traffic controllers, pharmacists, and various upper-level managers.  I disagree strongly with your assertion that our brightest and most motivated people should be discouraged from pursuing those career paths.

That is not something that I said or implied, but maybe it was a mistake to engage with someone who declares himself a liar in his display name. Anyway...

Median pay figures mask quite a lot of variation in compensation within those professions - by specialty, by length of tenure, by public vs. private sector employment, by geography, by academic pedigree, and other factors. For example, primary care physicians earn 50% less than specialists, and primary care physicians living in under-served areas tend to earn even less. So, in principle, higher marginal tax rates could encourage people in these professions to make decisions that are more socially beneficial. And we know that even under our current tax code, many people are willing to work very hard for much less than they could be earning doing something else because of non-financial rewards. The idea that there's a direct correlation between a wage-earner's compensation and the degree to which that person's work benefits the public is not correct. It is not true for comparisons within professions, and it is not true for comparisons between professions.

Even if this isn't a policy goal - and this is the most direct and most important counterpoint to what you are claiming -  there's not much reason to believe that we'd be lacking for people who want to become high-status professionals because of higher tax rates. You might worry about how someone from a working class family would ever afford medical school, for instance, but that's an extremely severe problem even today. If we're lacking in a particular kind of professional, we'd be better off reducing barriers to entry - like the cost of medical school - rather than insisting on keeping everyone's income taxes low indefinitely in the hopes that it will encourage them to do something socially useful. And that's the argument that you set out to make - that there's some kind of public benefit in having people pay lower taxes on six-figure salaries (or, for that matter, investment income).

[Blair]

frankly, many of them are superior to the losers who get women's studies degrees, smoke pot all day, and then whine about their minimum wage job.  Taxing high incomes more is everything I hate about the left - they want to give it all to the illegals, to the Muslims, and to successful people they throw up a big middle finger and say, we want to give it to losers.

As someone who both smokes pot, and studies a useless humanities degree this is highly offensive.

Do we really have to explain how said person with a higher income tends to get that? It's generally by using tax funded projects-when there workers get sick they'll need healthcare, there workers were trained though the tax funded education system and when/if there business/property gets burgled they'll call the tax funded police.

And please; what 'liberal' has run on the premise of 'tax the rich, give it to the Muslims? (Btw Muslims aren't losers)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Are people on here seriously trying to say that the vast majority of rich people have gotten there through their own efforts and merits?

You gotta be kidding me.

[RaphaelDLG]

We're talking about people who earn 6-figure incomes a year.  So yes, if you become one of the professionals we were discussing, such as a medical specialist, then yes, you deserve every red cent you earned.  Obviously, many affluent people inherited their wealth, but what we're discussing is whether or not to raise taxes on everyone making that much, which I am resolutely opposed to.

 frankly, many of them are superior to the losers who get women's studies degrees, smoke pot all day, and then whine about their minimum wage job.  Taxing high incomes more is everything I hate about the left - they want to give it all to the illegals, to the Muslims, and to successful people they throw up a big middle finger and say, we want to give it to losers.

As someone who both smokes pot, and studies a useless humanities degree this is highly offesnive

I'm just having a little fun here, brother.

Something about Averroes's post just ticked me off.  It made it sound like it's the government's responsibility to make everything "socially optimal" and do that by confiscating a crapton of wealth from the most successful in our society.  This is why I like the idea of a flat tax - then people won't vote to get themselves benefits and take it from successful people; instead, everyone has to pay the cost.

We can agree that giving losers who smoke dope and contribute nothing to society a high salary is bad, but you're continuing to ignore that your "flat tax" system doesn't at all enable everyone a fair shot to work hard and use their talents.

The kid who is the next Elon Musk, Lincoln, or great medical inventor may never get a real shot to work hard apply himself if he goes to roach infested schools and grows up ill due to lack of adequate nutrition and medical care.

Your system encourages the Kardashians to sit on their asses and do vain, wasteful things with daddy's money while contributing nothing to society.

We can agree that people who do more valuable things should be entitled to a better standard of living, but your flat tax system is fundamentally unfair in reality even if it violates your a priori sense of fairness.

Are people on here seriously trying to say that the vast majority of rich people have gotten there through their own efforts and merits?

You gotta be kidding me.

In my opinion taxes should be a lot more exponential than they are and the estate tax should be extremely high to the benefit of six figure professionals at the expense of 8, 9, 10, 11 digit inherited wealth

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Honestly, people deserve to keep the majority of the money they earn.  I really don't care if it's more beneficial to society to take more of rich people's money.  It's still their money, and frankly, many of them are superior to the losers who get women's studies degrees, smoke pot all day, and then whine about their minimum wage job.  Taxing high incomes more is everything I hate about the left - they want to give it all to the illegals and to Democratic voting blocs, and to successful people they throw up a big middle finger and say, we want to give it to losers.  Frankly, if you're intelligent and determined enough to become a petroleum engineer, actuary, or whatever and command a high income, then I happen to believe that you shouldn't pay more than 50% of your income to the government just because Uncle Sam thinks that it would be better to encourage "better social outcomes."  

And look, I understand that not everyone in poverty is in it because they deserved it, but penalizing rich people because of other people's choice to do drugs, not take their education seriously, etc. is flat-out wrong.

Aww. Someone who believes their success is based on "merit" and inherent superiority. That's cute.

[Averroës Nix]

Taxing high incomes more is everything I hate about the left - they want to give it all to the illegals, to the Muslims, and to successful people they throw up a big middle finger and say, we want to give it to losers.

(And my point about Muslims was just that liberals care about not offending Muslim sympathies - refusing to even call it radical Islamic terrorism - yet they certainly don't care about outright stealing hordes of money from successful people for no other reason than "fairness.")

You do realize - given your demographic profile and the, uh, somewhat fragile state of mind demonstrated by your posting history -  that you represent more of a "terror" threat than all but an almost negligibly small share of American Muslims?

[Lief 🗽]

It's a crazy person's deranged scribblings, put together by people who obviously don't understand basic economics. Of course Bernie has never had a real job in his entire life, so very little of this is surprising.

[RFayette]

Taxing high incomes more is everything I hate about the left - they want to give it all to the illegals, to the Muslims, and to successful people they throw up a big middle finger and say, we want to give it to losers.

(And my point about Muslims was just that liberals care about not offending Muslim sympathies - refusing to even call it radical Islamic terrorism - yet they certainly don't care about outright stealing hordes of money from successful people for no other reason than "fairness.")

You do realize - given your demographic profile and the, uh, somewhat fragile state of mind demonstrated by your posting history -  that you represent more of a "terror" threat than all but an almost negligibly small share of American Muslims?

I mean, I enjoy trolling message boards (yes, even the fundie segment had a good bit of trolling in it), but it's not like I say a word of this stuff outside of it, so whatever.  That's part of my shtick is to go a bit overboard, I'll admit  My main point was that I oppose raising taxes on 6-figure incomes to redistribute it more to those in lower rungs and that I do favor encouraging success.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Rule #1 is that taxpayers (often conservatives complaining about it) don't understand just how much they get from the government because there are very basic things they can't live without that just seem free.
Rule #2 is that liberals don't understand just how much these people are already paying outside of federal income and payroll taxes. Local taxes are also astronomical, and I don't mean sales/excise. Local income taxes add a lot to the burden.

Both are needed to be said in this thread though I'm sure the smartest are aware. It's an absolutely terrible plan though and I do support reasonable tax hikes and unlike Torie, j don't believe in keeping the cap on the payroll tax.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

The entire VOX chart is completely and utterly bogus.