What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Sanders Propsed Plan to Cost $20,000 per Taxpayer (2 Viewers)

That one guy said:
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
Click to expand...
I really don't think they will either, but the people who were pushing Trump's corporate tax cut were raving about how much wage growth we would see.  When it comes to this they completely ignore any benefits and only focus on cost (while ironically saying it's free).

 
Dickies said:
I really don't think they will either, but the people who were pushing Trump's corporate tax cut were raving about how much wage growth we would see.  When it comes to this they completely ignore any benefits and only focus on cost (while ironically saying it's free).
Click to expand...
They will still be paying for it through additional taxation. 

 
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?
Click to expand...
The wages thing is the one thing I think is bunk.  Remember the talking point is greedy corporations.  They aren’t handing out large raises to account for healthcare. 

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
The wages thing is the one thing I think is bunk.  Remember the talking point is greedy corporations.  They aren’t handing out large raises to account for healthcare. 
Click to expand...
Agreed. I'm too much of a cynic to believe that workers see any kind of direct income boost in exchange for all of that healthcare cost being offloaded. The increased taxes will eat a good chunk of it and I'd expect the board, shareholders, etc. to pocket the rest like they've done every other time they get a government assisted cash infusion.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
The wages thing is the one thing I think is bunk.  Remember the talking point is greedy corporations.  They aren’t handing out large raises to account for healthcare. 
Click to expand...
That’s a major issue for sure and the reason that labor unions need to be way more prevalent. The idea that your employer could instantly give you a ~$10k pay cut because the government starts to cover health care for all is seriously screwed up and should be a reminder to everyone how important the right of labor to organize is.

 
mcintyre1 said:
Agreed. I'm too much of a cynic to believe that workers see any kind of direct income boost in exchange for all of that healthcare cost being offloaded. The increased taxes will eat a good chunk of it and I'd expect the board, shareholders, etc. to pocket the rest like they've done every other time they get a government assisted cash infusion.
Click to expand...
Might as well bend over and say I’m your ##### corporate daddy. The acceptance of this outlook is pathetic and antithetical to the spirit of the revolution that founded our country. 

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
The wages thing is the one thing I think is bunk.  Remember the talking point is greedy corporations.  They aren’t handing out large raises to account for healthcare. 
Click to expand...
They'll pay the competitive rate. They won't pay extra because they're generous, nor will hey pay less than the competitive rate because they're greedy. They'll pay what the market dictates. The question is what effect the plan will have on the labor market.

Ignore the taxes for a minute and just focus on the benefits. Instead of employers contributing to health insurance premiums, the government will cover them. One might think that this will reduce the amount of total compensation that an employee will agree to work for. He used to need $3K in wages plus $600 in health benefits to live his current lifestyle, and now he'll only need $3K in wages (because the health care is taken care of). So the employer will reduce total compensation from $3.6K to just $3K.

But that's not really how (competitive) labor markets work. Wages aren't determined by an employee's reservation price. They're instead determined by an employee's productivity. (Roughly speaking.) If "free" health care doesn't decrease an employee's productivity, it shouldn't reduce his total compensation package. So his monetary wages should increase from $3K to $3.6K -- the non-monetary compensation he used to get in the form of health care insurance will be converted into monetary compensation instead. (Again, roughly speaking -- take-home pay will be affected because monetary compensation is taxed while health care benefits are not.)

Seems good for employees so far!

But now let's add the taxes back in. How will that affect things? It depends on how the taxes are levied. If employees are taxed more, higher wages might not translate into higher take-home pay. If employers are taxed more, that effectively reduces marginal productivity of employees (as measured in dollars), and the market may reduce wages for that reason.

So ultimately it's hard to say.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile breaks it down well. I’ll just add at my job and my wife’s if we decline the health care plan, we get paid the equivalent of what would have been contributed to our plans. Is that not normal?

 
Amused to Death said:
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.
Click to expand...
Big companies have long relied on strategies to reduce their tax bills. But the new tax law is making it even easier, with a new analysis finding that 60 profitable Fortune 500 companies paid no taxes on a total of $79 billion of profits earned in 2018.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/2018-taxes-some-of-americas-biggest-companies-paid-little-to-no-federal-income-tax-last-year/

 
Ilov80s said:
Might as well bend over and say I’m your ##### corporate daddy. The acceptance of this outlook is pathetic and antithetical to the spirit of the revolution that founded our country. 
Click to expand...
I'm one of the biggest Bernie supporters on the board, I just don't have any confidence that the corporations will use that money to raise wages on their own, and I'm skeptical that we'll find a way to force them to do it either. Still want Bernie's plan, though.

 
Ilov80s said:
Maurile breaks it down well. I’ll just add at my job and my wife’s if we decline the health care plan, we get paid the equivalent of what would have been contributed to our plans. Is that not normal?
Click to expand...
I've never been given that option (have worked three "real" jobs since college). In my experience, all you get by declining is not having to pay your share of the cost of coverage.

 
mcintyre1 said:
I'm one of the biggest Bernie supporters on the board, I just don't have any confidence that the corporations will use that money to raise wages on their own, and I'm skeptical that we'll find a way to force them to do it either. Still want Bernie's plan, though.
Click to expand...
It’s really not raising compensation, it’s just directing part of your compensation into a paycheck instead of a health care account. It’s absolutely a paycut if they don’t adjust your compensation. How common is it for employers to offer employees money to not take health care? Like I said, my wife and I both get that money if we decline our health care options.

 
mcintyre1 said:
I've never been given that option (have worked three "real" jobs since college). In my experience, all you get by declining is not having to pay your share of the cost of coverage.
Click to expand...
Were any of those union jobs?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s said:
Maurile breaks it down well. I’ll just add at my job and my wife’s if we decline the health care plan, we get paid the equivalent of what would have been contributed to our plans. Is that not normal?
Click to expand...
Not in my experience.  I've never worked a job (and I've had a lot, though not in the public sector, only private) where wages fluctuated at all dependent on opting in or out of health insurance. I did negotiate a higher wage at one point from an employer that did not offer any coverage. 

Also, if employers are no longer responsible for health insurance according to this plan, could we close some tax loopholes,  raise corporate taxes significantly,  and large corporations could still conceivably come out ahead fiscally?  Insuring all those employees costs huge $$$. 

 
Herb said:
Not in my experience.  I've never worked a job (and I've had a lot, though not in the public sector, only private) where wages fluctuated at all dependent on opting in or out of health insurance. I did negotiate a higher wage at one point from an employer that did not offer any coverage. 

Also, if employers are no longer responsible for health insurance according to this plan, could we close some tax loopholes,  raise corporate taxes significantly,  and large corporations could still conceivably come out ahead fiscally?  Insuring all those employees costs huge $$$. 
Click to expand...
Interesting. I’m a public worker so my compensation includes the health care contribution. My wife is non-union but she works for a progressive company- unlimited sick days, etc.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
The wages thing is the one thing I think is bunk.  Remember the talking point is greedy corporations.  They aren’t handing out large raises to account for healthcare. 
Click to expand...
But I was told all those business tax cuts under this administration were going to be passed on to employees as higher wages.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s said:
mcintyre1 said:
Sadly no, I'm a tech worker where unions aren't a thing.
Click to expand...
Is there a lot of competition in the industry? Is  tech was in high demand? 
Click to expand...
I've never heard of a place treating their employees like you are.  I work in tech...in the banking industry.  My wife is a professor.  We've hopped back and forth based on the plans our employers offer, neither of them "give" us the equivalent if we don't use the insurance.  It makes total sense from a logic perspective, but I have NEVER heard of a company doing that.  I think I side with those who believe, if it's not mandated in the law, it's not going to happen out of the goodness of their hearts.

ETA:  That said, I'm not sure I'd go "dock in pay".  There is pretty good value in not being tied to your company because of health insurance.  It might open things up and let people be more aggressive with their job searches.  That would have value for the market overall.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s said:
That’s a major issue for sure and the reason that labor unions need to be way more prevalent. The idea that your employer could instantly give you a ~$10k pay cut because the government starts to cover health care for all is seriously screwed up and should be a reminder to everyone how important the right of labor to organize is.
Click to expand...
Labor unions have a real uphill battle. It’s weird to see the general population take a have/have not approach and side with the man

 
HellToupee said:
Labor unions have a real uphill battle. It’s weird to see the general population take a have/have not approach and side with the man
Click to expand...
Yeah why is that exactly? I never understood it and just assumed it was big corporate media influence. Big media certainly pushed an anti-union message historically in this country. 

 
The Commish said:
I've never heard of a place treating their employees like you are.  I work in tech...in the banking industry.  My wife is a professor.  We've hopped back and forth based on the plans our employers offer, neither of them "give" us the equivalent if we don't use the insurance.  It makes total sense from a logic perspective, but I have NEVER heard of a company doing that.  I think I side with those who believe, if it's not mandated in the law, it's not going to happen out of the goodness of their hearts.
Click to expand...
Yikes, how sad.

 
Ilov80s said:
Yikes, how sad.
Click to expand...
As it is right now, in my industry you have to hop from employer to employer to get any sort of meaningful raise.  That's too much work for me, so I brokered a full time WFH deal and then moved to a state that had no state income tax.  It will be 10 years of "typical raises" by my colleagues before they catch the net that I gained :lol:  

That said, we were just sold to an insurance company because of the rules put in place by the Obama admin regarding profitability of big banks, so I have no idea what's in store moving forward.  I might be honing my interview skills shortly.  :mellow:  

 
HellToupee said:
I think jealousy plays into it
Click to expand...
It’s actually quite an interesting study on how often do people vote against their own interests. I don’t think people should always vote for their own interest- that’s selfish- but some people really are mixed up. 

 
Ilov80s said:
Yeah why is that exactly? I never understood it and just assumed it was big corporate media influence. Big media certainly pushed an anti-union message historically in this country. 
Click to expand...
I'm in a union job right now and hate it. I've always supported unions, and have a number of friends and family that swear by unions. But where I am, all the union does is take monthly dues and protect worthless, lazy idiots from getting ####-canned, which is what they deserve. Basically your job and raises are guaranteed as long as you show up and don't assault a coworker. Actually performing work is optional. I'm trying like hell to get out. 

My benefits are awesome, though...

 
Herb said:
I'm in a union job right now and hate it. I've always supported unions, and have a number of friends and family that swear by unions. But where I am, all the union does is take monthly dues and protect worthless, lazy idiots from getting ####-canned, which is what they deserve. Basically your job and raises are guaranteed as long as you show up and don't assault a coworker. Actually performing work is optional. I'm trying like hell to get out. 

My benefits are awesome, though...
Click to expand...
There’s no doubt there needs to be a balance and in certain indutrsies unions got too powerful at times. My only counter to cases where unions act how yours is, there’s plenty of companies that treat employees like crap.

Also you said they just take your dues to protest crappy employees but it also sounds like they have secured you awesome benefits too.

 
John Blutarsky said:
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.”
Click to expand...
You lost me at "Fox and Friends". 

 
One of the most astonishing aspects of our Presidential campaigns is that everybody in both parties acts like these guys are running for dictator. “If Trump is elected he will do this”, “If Bernie is elected he will do that”. 

You may love Bernie’s Plan or you may hate it. You can think it will cost billions we can’t afford, or think that it will be a lot cheaper than that. It’s fun to argue but in real life terms it’s completely irrelevant. If Bernie Sanders becomes our next President the MOST he will be able to do is fix Obamacare up a little. That’s it. He does not have the political power to impose a healthcare for all system and he will never have that power. 

We may get these social programs someday, overtime. But a lot of these have to change first: namely, either conservatives in this country have to change their philosophy on this issue, or progressives have to take over the Democratic Party with a foolproof majority and the Democrats have to take over all 3 branches with a foolproof majority. This is not going to happen in 2020-2024. Short of a catastrophe it will probably take decades if it ever happens. 

 
timschochet said:
One of the most astonishing aspects of our Presidential campaigns is that everybody in both parties acts like these guys are running for dictator. “If Trump is elected he will do this”, “If Bernie is elected he will do that”. 

You may love Bernie’s Plan or you may hate it. You can think it will cost billions we can’t afford, or think that it will be a lot cheaper than that. It’s fun to argue but in real life terms it’s completely irrelevant. If Bernie Sanders becomes our next President the MOST he will be able to do is fix Obamacare up a little. That’s it. He does not have the political power to impose a healthcare for all system and he will never have that power. 

We may get these social programs someday, overtime. But a lot of these have to change first: namely, either conservatives in this country have to change their philosophy on this issue, or progressives have to take over the Democratic Party with a foolproof majority and the Democrats have to take over all 3 branches with a foolproof majority. This is not going to happen in 2020-2024. Short of a catastrophe it will probably take decades if it ever happens. 
Click to expand...
Can we agree that electing someone that actually wants to put forth legislation to tackle these issues, even if they don’t get everything they want, is how we eventually solve these problems?  Trump and the GOP have talked a big game on replacing ACA, but have done nothing. I want an attempt. 

 
Dickies said:
Can we agree that electing someone that actually wants to put forth legislation to tackle these issues, even if they don’t get everything they want, is how we eventually solve these problems?  Trump and the GOP have talked a big game on replacing ACA, but have done nothing. I want an attempt. 
Click to expand...
I guess it puts it up for discussion. But I don’t know if it really makes much of a difference. 

We don’t have universal health care because Big  Pharma doesn’t want it, and because politicians haven’t figured out a no-pain way to accomplish it. The second point is more important than the first: progressives need to realize that none of their ambitious ideas, on this issue or the Green New Deal or education, will ever happen unless they can find a way to avoid short term pain to the average American. 

 
timschochet said:
I guess it puts it up for discussion. But I don’t know if it really makes much of a difference. 

We don’t have universal health care because Big  Pharma doesn’t want it, and because politicians haven’t figured out a no-pain way to accomplish it. The second point is more important than the first: progressives need to realize that none of their ambitious ideas, on this issue or the Green New Deal or education, will ever happen unless they can find a way to avoid short term pain to the average American. 
Click to expand...
When it comes to healthcare we've already been experiencing long-term pain.  Time to alleviate it.

 
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.
Click to expand...
Insta-retirement for me.  I'll happily lay on the beach and let the rest of the hard working schmucks taxpayers support me.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
The wages thing is the one thing I think is bunk.  Remember the talking point is greedy corporations.  They aren’t handing out large raises to account for healthcare. 
Click to expand...
A lot of areas of the economy will have to. 

If you’re a lawyer or house cleaner or any other kind of service provider, and you could make more on your own and don’t need the health insurance, why not strike out?

 
:shrug:  I've been told by numerous presidents (or at least 1 orange one) that giving a big tax break to corporations and millionaires doesn't actually cost the government money because giving those philanthropic groups more available money will result in them reinvesting the money generating more income for the middle class and growing the economy, which actually generates more tax revenue for the government.  Doesn't it make sense, then, that relieving the middle class of the need to pay for healthcare, education, etc. will give them more available money to spend on commodities, growing the economy and resulting in more money for the corporations and millionaires to reinvest, which actually generates more tax revenue for the government?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
apalmer said:
:shrug:  I've been told by numerous presidents (or at least 1 orange one) that giving a big tax break to corporations and millionaires doesn't actually cost the government money because giving those philanthropic groups more available money will result in them reinvesting the money generating more income for the middle class and growing the economy, which actually generates more tax revenue for the government.  Doesn't it make sense, then, that relieving the middle class of the need to pay for healthcare, education, etc. will give them more available money to spend on commodities, growing the economy and resulting in more money for the corporations and millionaires to reinvest, which actually generates more tax revenue for the government?
Click to expand...
Forget relieving the middle class....think of the burden being lifted from all those multi-billion dollar companies struggling to make their billions.  It would be a huge benefit to them.  Someone think of the companies!!!!!!

 
Sand said:
Insta-retirement for me.  I'll happily lay on the beach and let the rest of the hard working schmucks taxpayers support me.
Click to expand...
Sounds delightful. Paving the way to an earlier retirement for those with the means to do so is just one of the many ways in which this will make life better for all Americans. Another, similar one is that people will be free to pursue the careers that give them a sense of purpose, including opening more small businesses and taking more risks, instead of being wedded to unsatisfying careers because they can't afford to give up employer-provided health care for themselves or their families.

 
timschochet said:
One of the most astonishing aspects of our Presidential campaigns is that everybody in both parties acts like these guys are running for dictator. “If Trump is elected he will do this”, “If Bernie is elected he will do that”. 

You may love Bernie’s Plan or you may hate it. You can think it will cost billions we can’t afford, or think that it will be a lot cheaper than that. It’s fun to argue but in real life terms it’s completely irrelevant. If Bernie Sanders becomes our next President the MOST he will be able to do is fix Obamacare up a little. That’s it. He does not have the political power to impose a healthcare for all system and he will never have that power. 

We may get these social programs someday, overtime. But a lot of these have to change first: namely, either conservatives in this country have to change their philosophy on this issue, or progressives have to take over the Democratic Party with a foolproof majority and the Democrats have to take over all 3 branches with a foolproof majority. This is not going to happen in 2020-2024. Short of a catastrophe it will probably take decades if it ever happens. 
Click to expand...
+1  I said that when Trump got elected and some of the folks I know lost their ever loving minds.

Guys, it's ONE guy.....and hes part of a very well designed governmental system.   Relax...He isn't going to become Hitler.   

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jackstraw
Republicans will demand cuts to SS and medicare or crash the economy
2
Replies
93
Views
3K
The Commish
The Commish
GordonGekko
Paypal Attempts AGAIN To Create $2,500 Terms Of Service Fine PER INSTANCE Of Perceived "Intolerance" (10/9/22 15:01 PST)
Replies
31
Views
1K
Bottomfeeder Sports
Bottomfeeder Sports
GordonGekko
The Atlantic: "Democrats Really Are That Dense About Climate Change" (6/23/22 01:00 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Maggot Brain
Maggot Brain

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top