Study: Most would see net benefits from Sanders's proposals
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by mcar (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: The Hill
The center’s latest analysis looks at who wins and who loses once Sanders’s new government benefits are taken into account as well.
TPC found that the average tax burden would increase by about $9,000 in 2017 but the average amount of benefits would increase by more than $13,000. As a result, households would on average receive a net income gain of almost $4,300 under Sanders’s proposals, TPC said.
Households in the bottom fifth of income would on average receive a net gain of more than $10,000, and those in the middle fifth of income would have an average gain of about $8,500. Those in the top 5 percent of income would see a net loss of about $111,000, TPC said.
“We have never seen a proposal as progressive” as Sanders’s, Burman said.
Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/279201-study-most-would-see-net-benefits-from-sanderss-proposals
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
realmirage
(2,117 posts)to convince HRC voters. I think if BS had been doing more explaining it would have helped him much more than repeating the same points.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)I've been taking a few weeks break from DU because it's too much. Dem on Dem is always the hard part. I do prefer actual studies.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)The same who took that money from us in the first place.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)can get richer
Someday they will fight back though, I am just glad I am on the right side of history and morality.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)kills people? That is a fact.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)paid for now.
Those who have really good plans could volunteer to take less and just subsidize the whole thing at a Federal level, ignore the states.
You know, help the rest out like the benevolent people they pretend to, instead of a bunch of "I got mine, screw you" kinda hypocrites. Probably won't though. I'm sure they have excuses and others to blame.
It really doesn't matter which plan you choose. The majority of jobs being created are low-paid service work. The government, which is nearly the only place black folks can apply to without thinking about their color, has nearly quit hiring and all but abandoned them to 35% or higher unemployment. We have twice as many people on food stamps as we had in 2004. Ten million people no longer own their homes and are giving up that equity to landlords, and millennials have become the largest cohort. Under previous schemes they would keep the nation running while the rest aged out, but that leg has been removed, forcing us to cooperate or fight with each other over scraps.
We choose to fight each other. Sigh. The people who are paying the price are easy to recognize. They are hungry kids, sick and infirm folks, tens of millions who work each week and still have to have food stamps - in other words, they are the ones who have had it all taken away with no relief offered.
Attempts to prop it up by paying people more isn't going to change the underlying weakness, and it will eventually fail.
The nation isn't making enough to pay it's bills. This is nearly all debt. That has been true since Reagan, and there is nothing on the horizon that is going to change it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)the wealth in our country was still allocated as it was in the 1960s.
The rich have increased their wealth so, so, so much faster than the rest of us. They should be paying much higher taxes than they are.
So that is not particularly relevant to a discussion of paying for the cost of medical care -- which is a necessity that still, in spite of Obamacare, many cannot afford.
I've been canvassing for Bernie in my area of Los Angeles and seeing the signs of poverty in so many places.
When I was canvassing downtown, I tried to register a young man to vote. He could not write his name. Ruined three voter registration forms just trying to write his first name.
I asked him what was wrong, and he told me he was sad. He had no place to sleep and could not get a job. 21 years old, no place to sleep and no job. There was a Methodist Church right around the corner, so I took him there to find the pastor. I used to work for a homeless project so I knew that churches are organized to get people like this young man in touch with the resources they need. As I spoke to the young man, I learned his history, a foster home at six, a deceased or possibly deported mother, Juvenile Hall and the Regional Center which is a facility that offers various assistance programs.
It became very clear to me that he was probably schizophrenic on top of it all (I'm not a psychologist and not qualified to diagnose that, but things he said were pretty way out there).
I assure you that under our current system, this young man has no health insurance. Not even in California. He has no income. In his confused condition, he will not get a job any time soon.
We need single payer insurance. We need Medicare for all so that when a young man likes that meets someone like me or walks into a church or a bar or tries to find a room or goes to a shelter or walks into a hospital, he gets help, so that no doctor needs to worry about whether to turn him away because that doctor knows that every person who walks into his office IS COVERED. No questions need to be asked other than name, address, etc. Everyone needs to be covered.
The only way to get every single person in the United States covered for health insurance is a government-run plan. The actual insurers and providers can be private, non-profits. But for-profit, private insurance that requires a lot of signing up and processing has to end. We are not all capable of getting ourselves "into the system."
We neglect and miss a lot of people with our current, greedy system.
The young man I met could have been your son. Could have been your brother. Could have been a sister or a child or an aunt or part of your family or mine. We are all one. Bernie understands that.
It is unfortunate that a lot of people on DU do not. Greed is not a virtue. Humility, love and kindness and inclusivity are.
stopbush
(24,406 posts)"While most people would get a net benefit from Sanders’s proposals, the revenue that his tax plan would raise “would fall far short of paying for the new spending programs,” TPC said. The single-payer healthcare proposal itself would cost almost twice as much as Sanders’s tax plan would raise.
"Sanders’s proposals would raise federal deficits by about $18 trillion over the next 10 years, and would increase the deficit by about $21 trillion when net interest is taken into account, TPC said.
“The ultimate distribution of benefits under the plan would depend upon whether the government financed that deficit through tax increases, spending cuts, increased borrowing, or some combination of these options,” TPC said. “A plan substantially financed by borrowing could raise interest rates and impose a substantial drag on the economy.”
And there's the rub!
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)nt
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)are found. If you cut out the money you now pay for your insurance including the very high co-pays, then you have a net savings if you are middle or low income.
stopbush
(24,406 posts)Do the math: currently, insurance companies must spend 80% of the premiums they collect on actual services. That is a helluva lot of $ being spent on healthcare. As critics of Sanders' plans have shown, there is no way that you can realistically cut the actual cost of health services significantly, say by half. It can't happen. It won't happen.
The big problem with Sanders' plan is that he dramatically underfunds the actual cost of services being provided. Forget about any profit these companies are making. Explain to me how a current Medicare patient who pays an average of $1200 a year in premiums will get the same services while paying ZERO on the Sanders plan? He eliminates buckets of revenue from different sources and doesn't replace them. He imagines that on top of it all, you'll get a refund! or save so much in premiums that you come out ahead.
Q: how do you expand a program like Medicare which is currently funded by 100% of the workers in this country to cover 18% of the population (over 65) for an average of under 20 years of life expectancy by raising the current payroll tax from 2.9% to 6.2% and come up with enough $ to cover 100% of the population for the entire 50-70 years of their average lives? One would assume that if it takes a tax of about 3% to fund insurance for 18% of the population that it would take a FIVE FOLD increase in taxes to fund the other 82% of the population. That means that rather than a 6.2% payroll tax you're talking about a 16% payroll tax. Couple that with the addition 2% income tax increase that Sanders is proposing for ALL taxpayers, and you're now talking about an 18-19% tax rate to pay for Medicare for all, not 6.2% as proposed by Sanders.
Why not read any one of the critiques out there that deal with actual costs of Sanders' plans and the needed offsets? You will find that the "net savings" imagined by Sanders only exist - ONLY exist - if you are willing to run an additional $21-TRILLION in deficits. If you don't want to run those deficits, then you have to increase taxes, limit services or increase co-pays.
That is exactly how Reagan funded HIS economic recovery - on the national credit card. Sanders' plan does the exact same thing, only the cost of his plan as deficit spending is astronomical.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Your numbers are pulled out of thin air and intended to scare the shit out of people.
We know that national healthcare works and cost less with better results in virtually every other developed nation.
Many have public college education which costs the students almost nothing.
Many have great benefits such as parental leave for up to a year.
The money is available. We are the wealthiest nation in the world.
We have one problem. An addiction to miltary spending.
stopbush
(24,406 posts)We have one problem - zealots who can't be bothered to read anything that contradicts the bs being put out by BS.
And again, eliminating the ENTIRE defense budget saves you only $6-trillion over the next decade. Sanders is proposing an additional $18-21-trillion in deficit spending. Where do you get the additional $12-15 trillion to zero out his deficits?
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Health care can be provided to all Americans with better results at half the price that it costs now.
The proof is that it is done successfully in many other countries.
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)Of course they could be just confessing that they aren't as smart as the Canadians or the Cubans or pretty much every other country on the planet.
There are millions of ways to cut the cost of medical services. Here in Canada we banned pharmaceutical advertising. That saved millions because they weren't compatible in a Public Health model. Like Cuba we trained our own doctors, not for free but available to anybody that could do the training.
Free Medical Care is a Human Right even in an industrial society like yours, where everything else is for sale.
.
stopbush
(24,406 posts)Most people need to eat every day, multiple times. Whole industries make money off the basic human necessity to eat. Is that wrong?
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)...unfortunately, only churches, locally run food banks and concerned citizen groups understand the morality of public duty and make basic services available to anyone who asks. Like another poster said, '...if all services were available, the community would be better served and more cost-efficient.'
I spent many years making money off the food industry, lugging their crap from one coast to the other. There is so much waste from beginning to end that feeding the country could be achieved for pennies on the dollar.
.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The young man I describe in post 16 was in a crime-ridden area of Lost Angeles. Predators were waiting there just to suck him into the criminal element and use him.
Health care, free health care for all, paid for out of the immense wealth that our country generates, could have easily afforded him the help he needed.
We wonder at the anger and crime in our country. Well, lack of healthcare, especially mental healthcare is one of the reasons that so many become the tools of crime in our country.
Regardless of the cost, we really, really need single payer, universal healthcare that covers not just physical problems but mental health and addiction. It will be cheaper than the money we pay to prisons to deal with our mentally ill and addicted. Much cheaper in the end.
Festivito
(13,454 posts)Playing dumb:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1443085
Oh, and Bernie's people point out that the Urban TPC is ... “inaccurate and one-sided” because it did not look at the benefits people would receive from the candidate’s spending...
And, they agree, that Bernie's people have a point in the OP article.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)HenryWallace
(332 posts)This is the essence of a progressive world view.
Using the fruits that society produces to rationally work for the good of all its members. To strive and work together to produce worthwhile and substantial goals. For the good of mankind, to be reformed and always reforming.
These should be the bedrock principles toward which democratic candidates should run. Yet here we seem be continually asked to aspire for something less… Sad really!
Human101948
(3,457 posts)and their fearful, greedy, can't do philosophy.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)they don't have common sense.
I don't know how many times I've seen that $15 an hour is going to hurt small businesses. Wrong. Fifteen dollars an hour is not going to happen the moment Bernie takes office, it will happen over years.
Everything that Bernie is supporting will not happen overnight, this is why this article and others are ludicrous. You change things in steps so that the goal is achievable. For example, health care, you offer a public option and let that fill up until private insurance is dried up and only for the rich wanting luxury care. You increase taxes incrementally to pay for it.
Meanwhile, you start rebuilding the infrastructure offering good paying jobs, which will increase spending in the community. You also start climate change strategies, with good paying jobs.
You would also be surprised how much money can be made off the transaction taxes for stock and commodity transactions. And for those who worry about pension funds and such, they usually aren't effected by high frequency trading.
Those effected by college debt should easily be able to refinance their debt to a much, much lower rate by the government, which would cut out the high interest by the middleman. And state college tuition can be lowered until it is free or virtually free.
Nothing Bernie has proposed will take place on the first day he takes office, but we know that he has been advocating for the same things for 30 years, and he will continue to do it when he is in the White House. And, yes, we know that it will take time.
You can't reach your destination, if you start off on a road that won't get you there.
Z
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)"You can't reach your destination, if you start off on a road that won't get you there."
.
stopbush
(24,406 posts)that Sanders' "free college" plan won't happen for years, and that the debt they're carrying may not be open for refinancing at a lower rate for years, if ever.
Might make the rallies a bit somber.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)they don't have the attitude that 'I got mine, so fuck you'. Bernie's policies are well known to the college crowd and he tells them up front that he can't do it alone. He also tells them that it will be hard road with many roadblocks. He does not promise them anything. The kids are not looking for a hand out, they are looking for a hand up.
He is not saying I'm going to do this for you, that's Hillary.
Z
gordianot
(15,279 posts)Not policies just the cult of unquestioning personality. Also it is not all Hillary supporters. I know real Hillary supporters in real life, you only see the bashing on anonymous opinion boards, not real life.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)
procon
(15,805 posts)promoting Bernie's policies. Articles like this are for more useful to voters, and the fine details of his policies should be discussed every day. Why aren't his fans talking up Bernie's ideas and plans? Do they know this stuff as even half as well as they can recite chapter and verse of every oppo research hit piece that is churned out by the Hillary Haters on the right and left?
This was a good article, but I see a lot of the Bernie fans are more interested in personal fighting than laying out the details and helping to explain things. I have a growing suspicion that their issues were never really about Bernie Sanders.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)
