Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan?

[RFayette]

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.

Agreed with removing the payroll tax cap above 250K+.  No reason to have it be regressive on income.  And yeah, I admit I can go too far with my reactionary views when I'm not in a great mood, but "terror threat" is a bit of a reach on Averroes's part, to say the least.  That being said, I do regret going too far in some of the posts I made today and yesterday (though yesterday was April Fools Day, so I intentionally pushed the envelope there).

[7,052,770]

I think it was the Upshot who had an app where you enter in your income and it tells you how your tax burden changes under each candidate.

Under Hillary's plan, I'd pay $200 more. No big deal at all. Under Bernie's plan, I'd pay over $14,000 more (?!) WTF, Bernie?!?! I'm nowhere close to being rich. I don't have an extra $14,000 laying around!

I would still vote for Bernie if he were somehow the nominee because I'm still loyal a Democrat above all and Trump is horrendous, but talk about an enthusiasm zapper...


Edit: It was Vox, not Upshot:  http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016

[Smash255]

I think it was the Upshot who had an app where you enter in your income and it tells you how your tax burden changes under each candidate.

Under Hillary's plan, I'd pay $200 more. No big deal at all. Under Bernie's plan, I'd pay over $14,000 more (?!) WTF, Bernie?!?! I'm nowhere close to being rich. I don't have an extra $14,000 laying around!

I would still vote for Bernie if he were somehow the nominee because I'm still loyal a Democrat above all and Trump is horrendous, but talk about an enthusiasm zapper...


Edit: It was Vox, not Upshot:  http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016

Vox's numbers are complete and utter bs.

[RR1997]

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.

70% of billionaires in this country are self-made. A majority of billionaires grew up in poor or middle-class circumstances.

[7,052,770]

I think it was the Upshot who had an app where you enter in your income and it tells you how your tax burden changes under each candidate.

Under Hillary's plan, I'd pay $200 more. No big deal at all. Under Bernie's plan, I'd pay over $14,000 more (?!) WTF, Bernie?!?! I'm nowhere close to being rich. I don't have an extra $14,000 laying around!

I would still vote for Bernie if he were somehow the nominee because I'm still loyal a Democrat above all and Trump is horrendous, but talk about an enthusiasm zapper...


Edit: It was Vox, not Upshot:  http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016

Vox's numbers are complete and utter bs.

OK I guess? If you have some supporting evidence, I'll take a look, but I'm going to believe a legitimate national news source over a Sanders supporter on a message board, no offense of course.

Are you including "what I'd save in health insurance costs" in your figure?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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.

First, let's stop equating wealth with success.

Second, "encouraging success," if we are defining success your way, requires giving people the tools they need to succeed. Most of those tools come in the form of policies and programs that I expect you would reject as "special treatment." These programs require funding.

[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.

First, let's stop equating wealth with success.

Second, "encouraging success," if we are defining success your way, requires giving people the tools they need to succeed. Most of those tools come in the form of policies and programs that I expect you would reject as "special treatment." These programs require funding.

I have no issue with job-training programs, subsidized tuition, etc.  All I'm saying is that the tax code to fund such programs should be relatively flat, except perhaps with some progressivism once we get to 1 million dollar plus incomes.

[RightBehind]

Tax increases are only a problem if a candidate pledges to do so.

[RR1997]

A slight tax hike on the rich is a good idea in my opinion, but I think that Bernie's plan goes too far. I think the current income tax rates are perfect, and I like the fact that Hillary's wants to retain the status quo on this issue.

Trump's plan is insane and would largely increase our deficit.

[Lief 🗽]

Tax increases are only a problem if a candidate pledges to do so.

Well Bernie has pledged to massively increase everyone's taxes (while laying waste to a number of industries that cumulatively employ millions of people), so I think it's definitely a problem in this case.

[RightBehind]

Tax increases are only a problem if a candidate pledges to do so.

Well Bernie has pledged to massively increase everyone's taxes (while laying waste to a number of industries that cumulatively employ millions of people), so I think it's definitely a problem in this case.

If you promise tax cuts and the other promises tax increases, the former may win and then raise taxes themselves. So I'd rather support a transparent candidate like that.

[Smash255]

I think it was the Upshot who had an app where you enter in your income and it tells you how your tax burden changes under each candidate.

Under Hillary's plan, I'd pay $200 more. No big deal at all. Under Bernie's plan, I'd pay over $14,000 more (?!) WTF, Bernie?!?! I'm nowhere close to being rich. I don't have an extra $14,000 laying around!

I would still vote for Bernie if he were somehow the nominee because I'm still loyal a Democrat above all and Trump is horrendous, but talk about an enthusiasm zapper...


Edit: It was Vox, not Upshot:  http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016

Vox's numbers are complete and utter bs.

OK I guess? If you have some supporting evidence, I'll take a look, but I'm going to believe a legitimate national news source over a Sanders supporter on a message board, no offense of course.

Are you including "what I'd save in health insurance costs" in your figure?

For starters the Vox Calculator included the employer portion of the healthcare tax as a cost to you.   While doing so they are also not calulcating the employer savings from no longer paying for a health care plan, and not taking into consideration the savings from you not paying for healthcare premiums anymore.


http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/03/30/ezra-klein-and-terrible-horrible-no-good-tax-calculator

[RR1997]

There's this weird misconception (especially amongst leftist) that a vast majority of rich people inherited their wealth and grew up in rich families.

That's far from the truth. 70% of billionaires didn't inherit anything and a majority of the Forbes 400 didn't come from rich families.

[Averroës Nix]

There's this weird misconception (especially amongst leftist) that a vast majority of rich people inherited their wealth and grew up in rich families.

That's far from the truth. 70% of billionaires didn't inherit anything and a majority of the Forbes 400 didn't come from rich families.

This discussion is pretty tangential to the "what marginal income tax rates are optimal" question, but this is... not even close to true:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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.

70% of billionaires in this country are self-made. A majority of billionaires grew up in poor or middle-class circumstances.

"Self-made" does not always involve effort and merit. Good on them for capitalizing on the special opportunities they were given to work hard and rise out of their social milieu, but not everyone is afforded those same special opportunities. I would be curious to know the breakdown between "poor" and "middle-class" origins (and indeed the definitions of both) in the example you provide. There are people who start in life far worse than that, and if they find themselves in the double-jeopardy situation of also having dark skin or coming from a depressed neighbourhood, well... things are even harder.

North American social systems and institutions, from universities to hospitals, are sites of social performance, and in these playing fields what may look like getting ahead based on merit really involves invisible helping hands that privilege certain kinds of people. The odds that Laquisha Jackson makes it to college and then graduates into a stable job are a lot slimmer than the odds of William Fairchild from Bridgeport, Connecticut doing the same. One faces roadblocks every step of the way; the other has the gates held open for him throughout the whole journey. How many of those billionaires started off as black kids from Harlem?

[RFayette]

There's this weird misconception (especially amongst leftist) that a vast majority of rich people inherited their wealth and grew up in rich families.

That's far from the truth. 70% of billionaires didn't inherit anything and a majority of the Forbes 400 didn't come from rich families.

This discussion is pretty tangential to the "what marginal income tax rates are optimal" question, but this is... not even close to true:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough, but tax increases on billionaires is far from what we're talking about.  If we're just talking about tax increases on those at that level, I'm OK with that.  What we were talking about is $10K+ increases in total tax bills for people just breaking the six figures.  That seems to be a different story entirely.

[Smash255]

There's this weird misconception (especially amongst leftist) that a vast majority of rich people inherited their wealth and grew up in rich families.

That's far from the truth. 70% of billionaires didn't inherit anything and a majority of the Forbes 400 didn't come from rich families.

This discussion is pretty tangential to the "what marginal income tax rates are optimal" question, but this is... not even close to true:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough, but tax increases on billionaires is far from what we're talking about.  If we're just talking about tax increases on those at that level, I'm OK with that.  What we were talking about is $10K+ increases in total tax bills for people just breaking the six figures.  That seems to be a different story entirely.

No we aren't talking about that, a website which is including an employer based tax (without taking into consideration employer based deduction in costs) is talking about that, but it is nowhhere near reality.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think people should be adequately rewarded for the work, effort and positive consequences they give to society. I don't think the current system does that.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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.

First, let's stop equating wealth with success.

Second, "encouraging success," if we are defining success your way, requires giving people the tools they need to succeed. Most of those tools come in the form of policies and programs that I expect you would reject as "special treatment." These programs require funding.

I have no issue with job-training programs, subsidized tuition, etc.  All I'm saying is that the tax code to fund such programs should be relatively flat, except perhaps with some progressivism once we get to 1 million dollar plus incomes.

Raising the revenues necessary to fund the programs you suggest requires the tax brackets and tax rates to at least remain similar to what they are now. Flattening everything would mean putting the burden on people who are less able to afford it, which would basically neutralize the effects of the training programs and tuition subsidies in the first place.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

There's this weird misconception (especially amongst leftist) that a vast majority of rich people inherited their wealth and grew up in rich families.

That's far from the truth. 70% of billionaires didn't inherit anything and a majority of the Forbes 400 didn't come from rich families.

This discussion is pretty tangential to the "what marginal income tax rates are optimal" question, but this is... not even close to true:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough, but tax increases on billionaires is far from what we're talking about.  If we're just talking about tax increases on those at that level, I'm OK with that.  What we were talking about is $10K+ increases in total tax bills for people just breaking the six figures.  That seems to be a different story entirely.

No we aren't talking about that, a website which is including an employer based tax (without taking into consideration employer based deduction in costs) is talking about that, but it is nowhhere near reality.

So I presume your employer would still give you the same amount of income with many, many more mandatory benefits? Makes sense! Guess we'll double the minimum wage too just to ensure it.

[Averroës Nix]

There's this weird misconception (especially amongst leftist) that a vast majority of rich people inherited their wealth and grew up in rich families.

That's far from the truth. 70% of billionaires didn't inherit anything and a majority of the Forbes 400 didn't come from rich families.

This discussion is pretty tangential to the "what marginal income tax rates are optimal" question, but this is... not even close to true:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough, but tax increases on billionaires is far from what we're talking about.  If we're just talking about tax increases on those at that level, I'm OK with that.  What we were talking about is $10K+ increases in total tax bills for people just breaking the six figures.  That seems to be a different story entirely.

I don't think that talking about billionaires tells us much about other people's economic experiences, either, which is one reason why I dismissed the claim as not just false, but irrelevant. (Moreover, it's not as if the fact that a fortune is "self-made" is in itself a reason to favor lower tax rates.) But there's not much reason to believe that you can sustain the kind of programs that Sanders, other Democrats, and even Republicans usually campaign on, and fund them through income and payroll taxes, without raising those taxes on Americans earning $100k - $200k per year. In the long run, those of us who support those programs need to make that the case that they are worthwhile rather than deluding voters into thinking that only people with higher incomes will ever need to pay more.

[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.

First, let's stop equating wealth with success.

Second, "encouraging success," if we are defining success your way, requires giving people the tools they need to succeed. Most of those tools come in the form of policies and programs that I expect you would reject as "special treatment." These programs require funding.

I have no issue with job-training programs, subsidized tuition, etc.  All I'm saying is that the tax code to fund such programs should be relatively flat, except perhaps with some progressivism once we get to 1 million dollar plus incomes.

Raising the revenues necessary to fund the programs you suggest requires the tax brackets and tax rates to at least remain similar to what they are now. Flattening everything would mean putting the burden on people who are less able to afford it, which would basically neutralize the effects of the training programs and tuition subsidies in the first place.

I suppose only applying a flat rate above a certain "subsistence" income of say, 20-30,000 dollars might be the solution to that.  I suppose the problem then would be increased taxes on the middle class; in that case, some pretty progressive taxation on capital gains and 10 million+ in income could be utilized.  Of course, spending could also be cut elsewhere in the budget to pay for more job-training and subsidized tuition; I'd probably look to entitlement reform to help recoup some costs.

[RaphaelDLG]

Another thing to watch for when billionaires claim largely "self-made" status is what percentage of their wealth came from compounding interest on inherited wealth.

It's relatively easy to make money with a pile of money and does not require some special skill as an investor.  For instance, if Trump had put his hundreds of millions in inheritance into vanguard index funds and sat on his hands for a few decades, he'd actually have more money than the 4 billion he made as an "entrepreneur."

[RR1997]

Let's forget about wealthier taxpayers. The main thing I don't like about Bernie's tax plan is that he wants to substantially raise taxes on the middle class. That's not a good idea and it will severely hurt him in the GE if he were to win the nomination.

[Smash255]

There's this weird misconception (especially amongst leftist) that a vast majority of rich people inherited their wealth and grew up in rich families.

That's far from the truth. 70% of billionaires didn't inherit anything and a majority of the Forbes 400 didn't come from rich families.

This discussion is pretty tangential to the "what marginal income tax rates are optimal" question, but this is... not even close to true:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough, but tax increases on billionaires is far from what we're talking about.  If we're just talking about tax increases on those at that level, I'm OK with that.  What we were talking about is $10K+ increases in total tax bills for people just breaking the six figures.  That seems to be a different story entirely.

No we aren't talking about that, a website which is including an employer based tax (without taking into consideration employer based deduction in costs) is talking about that, but it is nowhhere near reality.

So I presume your employer would still give you the same amount of income with many, many more mandatory benefits? Makes sense! Guess we'll double the minimum wage too just to ensure it.

If we are going to have an honest debate on it, it is one thing.  Calling it a tax on the employee as in the Vox article and calulcator is simply false.  Not to mention the employer will no longer be laying out $$ for their employees health insurance.  So the 6.2% increase in the tax on the employer isn't actually anywhere near a 6.2% increase in out of pocket expenses for the employer.