Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Sanders Propsed Plan to Cost $20,000 per Taxpayer


Recommended Posts

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-plan-cost-trillions

Maya MacGuineas, the president of independent and bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, warned on “Fox and Friends” Tuesday morning that Bernie Sanders’ proposed policies could cost $20,000 per taxpayer.

“If you look at healthcare, free tuition, family leave, child care – those proposals will all have a price tag of over $20,000 per taxpayer,” MacGuineas said.

“I don't know whether they plan to finance all of that or add that to the very large national debt, but the costs are certainly high. I know trillion is kind of hard to get your arms around. But when you bring it down per taxpayer, we are talking more than $20,000 increase in taxes.”

Sanders, the leading 2020 candidate in the crowded Democratic field, sat down at a Fox News town hall in Bethlehem, Pa., on Monday evening to make a pitch for his ambitions transformation of the economy, with universal healthcare at its core.

But MacGuineas cautioned that Sanders hasn’t yet come up with a way to fully fund the proposals and will only significantly increase the deficit and the expense of the taxpayer.

“None of the things he has been talking about are free, it does worry me when we put these in the context of free healthcare, free college tuition. It's really important that we put them in the broader budget context of how much would this cost and do we think it's worth it?” MacGuineas said.

“Because just to anchor the kind of conversation he is starting, we do need to keep in mind that the national debt of the country right now is at near record levels.

“And then we are talking about adding a lot of new spending on top of it. Medicare for all would be one of the biggest new programs that people have ever introduced into the political debate,” she added.

MacGuineas said that her organization was “incredibly concerned” after analyzing Sanders’ 2016 proposals as they found “the huge gap between the very, very expensive price tag and the kind of pay-fors that he had put out there.” The research suggested Sanders’ 2016 plan was only 45% paid for.

Not much has changed with his 2020 campaign, MacGuineas said, though his current revealed proposals are more detailed and offer a better understanding of how Sanders hopes to fund the programs.

“He doesn't have a plan to pay for Medicare for all yet, but he has introduced option many of which include broad-based tax increases, a lot of tax increases on the wealthy, getting rid of some tax breaks,” she said.

“Still, it's going to fall short and the numbers aren't detailed enough to know. My guess is we are still talking about a 10 trillion-dollar hole.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We already spend around $11K per person on health care alone under the current system. Re-allocating this burden via progressive tax structure instead of the current fairly evenly allocated cost structure would mean that the incredibly wealthy would bear a greater share of it while the rest of us would pay less.  And it's gonna get us guaranteed child care, higher education and family leave too?

Man, this sounds amazing. I've been a skeptic, but this post and the study it cites have convinced me.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

We already spend around $11K per person on health care alone under the current system. Re-allocating this burden via progressive tax structure instead of the current fairly evenly allocated cost structure would mean that the incredibly wealthy would bear a greater share of it while the rest of us would pay less.  And it's gonna get us guaranteed child care, higher education and family leave too?

Man, this sounds amazing. I've been a skeptic, but this post and the study it cites have convinced me.

It all sounds great for those living in a fantasy world. This would devastate many hard working people in this country. Yes, free this and free that sound great but someone will have to pay for it and our economy would fall apart if all of this would pass. Fortunately we have too many people in this country that won't fall for this and approve it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

It all sounds great for those living in a fantasy world. This would devastate many hard working people in this country. Yes, free this and free that sound great but someone will have to pay for it and our economy would fall apart if all of this would pass. Fortunately we have too many people in this country that won't fall for this and approve it.

can Bernie just say that all of those things will pay for themselves and we just take him at his word?  or even better, say that he has a secret plan to pay for all of these things, its an incredible plan, and he can't wait to reveal it to the American people after he's elected.  and Bernie is THE ONLY ONE who can fix this mess.  how many people in country would fall for that rhetoric?

  • Like 7
  • Love 2
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jomar said:

can Bernie just say that all of those things will pay for themselves and we just take him at his word?  or even better, say that he has a secret plan to pay for all of these things, its an incredible plan, and he can't wait to reveal it to the American people after he's elected.  and Bernie is THE ONLY ONE who can fix this mess.  how many people in country would fall for that rhetoric?

What mess are you referring to? It seems most things in this country are going well. Economy is good, stock market doing well, GNP is up, employment numbers are good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

It all sounds great for those living in a fantasy world. This would devastate many hard working people in this country. Yes, free this and free that sound great but someone will have to pay for it and our economy would fall apart if all of this would pass. Fortunately we have too many people in this country that won't fall for this and approve it.

what's free?  you just said it costs $20K per taxpayer.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

It all sounds great for those living in a fantasy world. This would devastate many hard working people in this country. Yes, free this and free that sound great but someone will have to pay for it and our economy would fall apart if all of this would pass. Fortunately we have too many people in this country that won't fall for this and approve it.

Did you miss the part where the hard-working people wouldn't have to pay an average of $11K per month for health care that they currently pay, which means that even if these numbers were correct AND we didn't have a progressive tax structure it would still only cost $9K more and would come with free child care and secondary education and guaranteed family leave, all of which would disproportionately benefit the working class people who struggle with these expenses?

Or the part where our progressive tax structure means that those costs would actually be borne by the wealthy and by businesses, meaning that most middle class and poor people would actually come out ahead here?

Or the part where conservatives just spend $2 trillion on tax cuts to the rich and are now going to have to explain to voters why it's OK to put the federal government deeper in debt to pay for a tax break on eight figure inheritances but not to pay for cancer treatments for children?

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TobiasFunke said:

Did you miss the part where the hard-working people wouldn't have to pay an average of $11K per month for health care that they currently pay, which means that even if these numbers were correct AND we didn't have a progressive tax structure it would still only cost $9K more and would come with free child care and secondary education and guaranteed family leave, all of which would disproportionately benefit the working class people who struggle with these expenses?

Or the part where our progressive tax structure means that those costs would actually be borne by the wealthy and by businesses, meaning that most middle class and poor people would actually come out ahead here?

Or the part where conservatives just spend $2 trillion on tax cuts to the rich and are now going to have to explain to voters why it's OK to put the federal government deeper in debt to pay for a tax break on eight figure inheritances but not to pay for cancer treatments for children?

 

I didn't miss anything and keep on supporting a socialist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John Blutarsky said:

Free tuition, free health care, free child support etc. Did you miss that?

I guess so.  how can something that costs $20K per taxpayer, per year, be free?

  • Like 2
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

I didn't miss anything and keep on supporting a socialist.

It's funny. You started out this thread with a post about the actual numbers and a discussion of the cost to taxpayers. But as soon as I started digging into the math about the tax burden and what exactly taxpayers would get in return for that money, you totally changed your tune. You started ignoring the math and the policy discussion in favor of the same stale nonsensical fearmongering about socialism that conservatives have been deploying since Eisenhower proposed the interstate highway system.

 

And by funny I mean that it was laughably predictable, because it happens Every. Single. Time.

Edited by TobiasFunke
  • Like 12
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TobiasFunke said:

It's funny. You started out this thread with a post about the actual numbers and a discussion of the cost to taxpayer. But as soon as I started digging into the math about the tax burden and what exactly taxpayers would get in return for that money you totally changed your tune and started totally ignoring the math and the policy discussion in favor of the same stale nonsensical fearmongering about socialism that conservatives have been deploying since Eisenhower proposed the interstate highway system.

 

And by funny I mean that it was laughably predictable, because it happens Every. Single. Time.

If this system is so good why don't we have it now? His plans will hurt many working class families in this country. That is a fact. Deal with it.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

It all sounds great for those living in a fantasy world. This would devastate many hard working people in this country. Yes, free this and free that sound great but someone will have to pay for it and our economy would fall apart if all of this would pass. Fortunately we have too many people in this country that won't fall for this and approve it.

 

How would the economy fall apart if this were to pass?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, John Blutarsky said:

If this system is so good why don't we have it now? His plans will hurt many working class families in this country. That is a fact. Deal with it.

How do you figure? It's seems that working class families might benefit most. (They get the health care, family leave, child care and "free" tuition at a discount due to progressive taxation.)  It's others like childless affluent couples that would be getting screwed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Tobias buddy hit him with how taxpayers already pay over 50 billion a year in taxes to leave college grads in perpetual debt preventing them from buying houses, cars, etc. Which hurts working class families who rely on construction and manufacturing jobs.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

If this system is so good why don't we have it now? His plans will hurt many working class families in this country. That is a fact. Deal with it.

Because super rich people don't want it for obvious reasons, and they've convinced middle-class white voters to agree with them by siding with them on social issues that the rich people don't actually give a #### about, appealing to their racial resentment, and using right wing media as a messaging tool for this scam. This is all pretty well documented.  Unless you think it's just a bizarre coincidence that most of the people who oppose gay marriage and aggressive immigration enforcement also support unregulated capitalism and private health insurance even though those things are totally unrelated?

If you want proof, look no further than the first world countries that don't have the same social issues for rich people to use as leverage. Most of them already have most of the stuff Sanders is proposing.

Edited by TobiasFunke
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Juxtatarot said:

How do you figure? It's seems that working class families might benefit most. (They get the health care, family leave, child care and "free" tuition at a discount due to progressive taxation.)  It's others like childless affluent couples that would be getting screwed.

$20,000 per taxpayer...that includes working class families. Even if that is a $9,000 a year increase how many families can handle that increase? Socialism will not work here and will not be supported by people when it comes to elections. You know what is interesting is you liberals can't have any sort of debate without adding snark and condescending comments.

If you all think this is such a great idea why hasn't the country done this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a hard working American.  I pay about $900/month for health insurance for my family of 4.  I have two kids in college, and their tuition, room and board is about $50k per year - granted it's only 4 years each.  When they were little, I had day care costs of close to $1000/month.  I took one week off for each kid and my wife quit her job before having #1 and #2.  Assuming that $20K figure is not some pie in the sky number some Fox News talking puppet pulled out of his ### (that's a BIG assumption), it sounds like a great deal to me.  Sign me up.  The free market is anything but free and it has completely failed the middle class.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

Oh Tobias buddy hit him with how taxpayers already pay over 50 billion a year in taxes to leave college grads in perpetual debt preventing them from buying houses, cars, etc. Which hurts working class families who rely on construction and manufacturing jobs.

Also this.

3 minutes ago, joffer said:

hey Bluto, just so i'm clear, is K-12 public education "free" or am I paying for it?

And this.

I have a feeling this thread is not going to go the way the OP intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It will cost $20K per taxpayer" is a weird way to phrase it. How much will it benefit each taxpayer? I'd imagine somewhere around $20K, give or take, depending on efficiencies vs. transaction costs, right? (My guess would be maybe $18K worth of benefits, while Bernie's guess might be $25K.)

The plan could be good or bad for all kinds of reasons, but "it will have a gross cost without considering benefits" doesn't seem like an interesting statement.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

$20,000 per taxpayer...that includes working class families. Even if that is a $9,000 a year increase how many families can handle that increase? Socialism will not work here and will not be supported by people when it comes to elections. You know what is interesting is you liberals can't have any sort of debate without adding snark and condescending comments.

If you all think this is such a great idea why hasn't the country done this?

It's $9K a year minus whatever they're currently paying for child care, and tuition/student loans. And the $20K/$9K is the per capita average, not the median. In truth most of the burden would fall on the wealthy and on corporations, or would simply be tacked on to the national debt- something that doesn't seem to bother most conservatives when there's a Republican in the White House. The "average" middle class American would probably come out ahead, especially if they have small children or plan to have children.

Edited by TobiasFunke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

"It will cost $20K per taxpayer" is a weird way to phrase it. How much will it benefit each taxpayer? I'd imagine somewhere around $20K, give or take, depending on efficiencies vs. transaction costs, right? (My guess would be maybe $18K worth of benefits, while Bernie's guess might be $25K.)

If this is such a wonderful plan that won't hurt working families, the middle class etch then why hasn't it been put into place. You guys make it seem like won't hurt these people. If it is such a positive then have a Democrat candidate run on that platform like Bernie and see how it works out let alone getting it approved. It all sounds good but it has to be paid for and that is where reality sets in. Enjoy the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

$20,000 per taxpayer...that includes working class families. Even if that is a $9,000 a year increase how many families can handle that increase? Socialism will not work here and will not be supported by people when it comes to elections. You know what is interesting is you liberals can't have any sort of debate without adding snark and condescending comments.

If you all think this is such a great idea why hasn't the country done this?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say it would cost an *average* of $20k per taxpayer?  If the super wealthy pay the same tax rate, working class families should pay a lot less than $20k/year.  Oh, and corporations like Amazon and Walmart that pay near-zero should start contributing a few hundred million a year.  That'd be useful to help lower working class taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

$20,000 per taxpayer...that includes working class families. Even if that is a $9,000 a year increase how many families can handle that increase? Socialism will not work here and will not be supported by people when it comes to elections. You know what is interesting is you liberals can't have any sort of debate without adding snark and condescending comments.

If you all think this is such a great idea why hasn't the country done this?

I've asked you multiple questions without snark - to which you have het to respond.

But $20k per taxpayer is an average, obviously. That doesn't mean every taxpayer is going to pay $20k. As @TobiasFunke wrote, we have a progressive tax system. 

Two questions - without snark - 

1) What do you consider socialism and why do you think it will not work here?

2) Why do you think "it" will not be supported when it comes to elections?

Edited by whoknew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John Blutarsky said:

If this is such a wonderful plan that won't hurt working families, the middle class etch then why hasn't it been put into place. You guys make it seem like won't hurt these people. If it is such a positive then have a Democrat candidate run on that platform like Bernie and see how it works out let alone getting it approved. It all sounds good but it has to be paid for and that is where reality sets in. Enjoy the topic.

Why hasn’t basic health care for everyone been provided? Great question!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

$20,000 per taxpayer...that includes working class families. Even if that is a $9,000 a year increase how many families can handle that increase? Socialism will not work here and will not be supported by people when it comes to elections. You know what is interesting is you liberals can't have any sort of debate without adding snark and condescending comments.

If you all think this is such a great idea why hasn't the country done this?

A lot of powerful people are making a lot of money off the current system.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

If this system is so good why don't we have it now? His plans will hurt many working class families in this country. That is a fact. Deal with it.

We have aspects of the system now.

His plans will also help many working class families.  That is a fact.  Deal with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:
26 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

It will cost $20K per taxpayer" is a weird way to phrase it. How much will it benefit each taxpayer? I'd imagine somewhere around $20K, give or take, depending on efficiencies vs. transaction costs, right? (My guess would be maybe $18K worth of benefits, while Bernie's guess might be $25K.)

If this is such a wonderful plan that won't hurt working families, the middle class etch then why hasn't it been put into place. You guys make it seem like won't hurt these people. If it is such a positive then have a Democrat candidate run on that platform like Bernie and see how it works out let alone getting it approved. It all sounds good but it has to be paid for and that is where reality sets in. Enjoy the topic.

None of this is responsive to my post. I didn't claim it was a wonderful plan that won't hurt working families. That's beside the point of whether it makes sense to look only at the gross costs, not the net effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dickies said:

Sounds like a deal. Count me in. Haven’t had a chance to read the article yet, but did it touch on how much wages would increase as a result of employers no longer needing to pay for heath insurance?

I’m about as cynical toward big business as I am toward big government, so from that perspective:

Isn't the bolded a bit trickle down-ish?  Not that I’m against Bernie’s plans or their professed goals and benefits, but believing businesses will suddenly pass on those lost costs seems similar to believing tax cut savings will be treated the same way

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

$20,000 per taxpayer...that includes working class families. Even if that is a $9,000 a year increase how many families can handle that increase? Socialism will not work here and will not be supported by people when it comes to elections. You know what is interesting is you liberals can't have any sort of debate without adding snark and condescending comments.

If you all think this is such a great idea why hasn't the country done this?

You’ve been proclaiming things facts and saying everyone else should get over it.  What about your posts haven’t been snark or condescending?  If you want civil debate, try engaging in it and you will get it in return.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...