3
0

Vote for Bernie to raise YOUR taxes


 invite response                
2016 Feb 8, 7:54am   19,907 views  41 comments

by mmmarvel   ➕follow (1)   💰tip   ignore  

This the tax table as it exists now.
Ordinary Income Capital Gains and Dividends Single Filers Married Filers Heads of Household
10% 0% $0-$9,275 $0-$18,550 $0-$13,250
15% 0% $9,275-$37,650 $18,550-$75,300 $13,250-$50,400
5% 15% $37,650-$91,150 $75,300-$151,900 $50,400-$130,150
28% 15% $91,150-$190,150 $151,900-$231,450 $130,150-$210,800
33% 15% $190,150-$413,350 $231,450-$413,350 $210,800-$413,350
35% 15% $413,350-$415,050 $413,350-$466,950 $413,350-$441,000
39.6% 20% $415,050+ $466,950- $441,000+

New rates under Bernie
Ordinary Income Capital Gains and Dividends Single Filers Married Filers Heads of Household
12.2% 2.2% $0-$9,275 $0-$18,550 $0-$13,250
17.2% 2.2% $9,275-$37,650 $18,550-$75,300 $13,250-$50,400
27.2% 17.2% $37,650-$91,150 $75,300-$151,900 $50,400-$130,150
30.2% 17.2% $91,150-$190,150 $151,900-$231,450 $130,150-$210,800
35.2% 17.2% $190,150-$250,000 $231,450-$250,000 $210,800-$250,000
39.2% 39.2% $250,000-$500,000 $250,000-$500,000 $250,000-$500,000
45.2% 45.2% $500,000-$2,000,000 $500,000-$2,000,000 $500,000-$2,000,000
50.2% 50.2% $2,000,000-$10,000,000 $2,000,000-$10,000,000 $2,000,000-$10,000,000
54.2% 54.2% $10,000,000+ $10,000,000+ $10,000,000+

So tell me again how great Bernie will be.

Here is a link to the article.
http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/02/07/bernie-sanders-income-tax-brackets-how-much-would.aspx?source=eogyholnk0000001&utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=article

Comments 1 - 40 of 41       Last »     Search these comments

1   Strategist   2016 Feb 8, 7:57am  

mmmarvel says

Vote for Bernie to raise YOUR taxes

Honk if you hate taxes.
HONK HONK HONK

2   Dan8267   2016 Feb 8, 8:24am  

mmmarvel says

Vote for Bernie to raise YOUR taxes

So my income and capital gains taxes go up 2.2% and the rich's income and capital gain taxes go up 14.6% and 34.2% and as a result I get real health care coverage instead of paying for health care theater and the century of national debt is paid off saving us hundreds of billions per year. Sign me up, bitch!

Ten years of those of us earning six figures paying a measly 2.2% more and those with seven figures paying 34.2% more, and then we can lower the taxes for all those making less than $250,000/yr by 10%. Think long-term, not short-term.

Oh, and capital gain should be taxed more than ordinary income, not less. Ordinary income is income from working and producing. Capital gain is income siphoned off those producing by those owning. Tax want you want less of, not what you want more off. We need more production and less siphoning.

3   Dan8267   2016 Feb 8, 8:47am  

CIC is just upset that Obamacare doesn't cover STDs received from chicken-fucking.

4   tatupu70   2016 Feb 8, 8:47am  

Ironman says

But, but, but.... My healthcare insurance will be coming out of my paycheck as a (higher) tax instead of it being paid as an expense later from my net income, so that's "better", right?

Yep, because it won't be (higher). That's another CIC lie.

5   Dan8267   2016 Feb 8, 9:12am  

Climate change deniers cannot be taken seriously on any subject matter.

6   tatupu70   2016 Feb 8, 9:19am  

Posting completely unrelated charts doesn't help your case. If you have something that says health care will cost MORE under Sanders plan that it does now---please share.

Because last I checked, the US spends at least 2X more than every other country that has nationalized health care.

7   FortWayne   2016 Feb 8, 9:40am  

Dan is suffering from the case of envy.

8   tatupu70   2016 Feb 8, 9:48am  

Ironman says

a blind assertion without knowing the facts behind it, doesn't support your opinion.

I'm surprised you need support for that statement as it's pretty settled at this point. But, here you go:

http://www.pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0006_health-care-oecd

Or this: 7 countries with highest health care costs. (spoiler alert--US is #1)

7. Denmark
Danes pay greatly for health care when compared to other countries. Denmark spends 11.1% of the country's GDP on health care, or around $4,464 per person. However, the country's life expectancy is 79.3 years, below the OECD average of 79.8.

6. Switzerland
The Alps aren't the only things reaching lofty heights in Switzerland. The nation spends 11.4% of its GDP on health care, high enough to claim the No. 6 spot on our list. Switzerland's per capita spending of $5,270 ranks third-highest among all OECD countries. The Swiss might be getting a good return on this spending, though. The nation's life expectancy of 82.6 ranks as the second-highest of all OECD nations after Japan.

5. Canada
Canada stands as the second-largest country in the world in terms of geographical area, but it also has relatively large health care costs. Canadians spend 11.4% of GDP on health care. The country's $4,445 per capita in medical spending ranks seventh-highest among OECD nations. Canadians have a life expectancy of 80.8 years, one year more than the OECD average.

4. Germany
Germany is Europe's greatest economic powerhouse, with a sizable portion of that economic power directed toward health care. German spending on health care comprises 11.6% of its GDP and totals $4,338 per person. The German life expectancy of 80.5 years exceeds the OECD average but only ranks 20th among the 34 OECD member nations.

3. France
France also spends 11.6% of its GDP on health care, but edges Germany in our ranking. French medical-related spending amounts to $3,974 per person. On the positive side, though, France boasts the ninth-highest life expectancy in the OECD at 81.3 years.

2. Netherlands
Healthcare isn't exactly a Dutch treat. The Netherlands spends 12% of its GDP -- $5,056 per capita -- on medical costs. The country ties Canada for 13th place among OECD members with a life expectancy of 80.8 years.

1. United States
As you probably expected, Americans are No. 1 -- unfortunately, in an area where we'd prefer to rank lower. The U.S. spends a staggering 17.9% of its GDP on health care. That's $8,680 per person -- 61% higher than the next-highest nation. However, Americans' life expectancy of 78.7 years places 27th among OECD members and is over a year less than the OECD average.

Would you like me to keep posting?

9   Dan8267   2016 Feb 8, 9:54am  

FortWayne says

Dan is suffering from the case of envy.

Wanting the uber-rich who got rich by exploiting others rather than producing wealth to pay their share of taxes is envy?

No one begrudges the man who earned his wealth by producing it. Sane people begrudge those who gained their wealth by siphoning it from other people. The fact that you are incapable of distinguishing these two things is yet another reason your opinions should not be respected.

10   lostand confused   2016 Feb 8, 10:11am  

Yet another record year for US citizens giving up their citizenship I can just imagine the numbers when Bern takes over- they will be clamoring for an exit tax.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/02/08/Record-numbers-renounced-their-US-citizenship-in-2015/4921454920051/

11   tatupu70   2016 Feb 8, 10:12am  

Ironman says

ad of being a parrot and telling us what we already know, try telling us WHY the US spends double.

If you already knew this, why did you ask me for articles supporting my statement? What is wrong with you?

12   tatupu70   2016 Feb 8, 10:38am  

Ironman says

You didn't answer my question of WHY.

Running away again when you can't support your assertions and opinions?

No--just wondering why you ask me to provide support for something you claim you everyone already knows.

13   HEY YOU   2016 Feb 8, 10:51am  

I'm writing in Ronny Reagan or "Read my lips,No new taxes." G.H.W.Bush for president.
Hell! Any Rep/Con would be a great president. They have never raised taxes & have always reduced taxes & have cut spending across the board to stop taxpayers from being stolen from by the socialist govt. for which they receive their taxpayer funded income.

14   justme   2016 Feb 8, 11:08am  

HEY YOU says

I'm writing in Ronny Reagan or "Read my lips,No new taxes." G.H.W.Bush for president.

Hell! Any Rep/Con would be a great president. They have never raised taxes & have always reduced taxes & have cut spending across the board to stop taxpayers from being stolen from by the socialist govt. for which they receive their taxpayer funded income.

Sly humor, there, Hey You. Of course, not all republican voters know that Saint Ronald actually increased taxes, and did not GHW Bush also? That fact has been written out of the Republican-sponsored version of history.

15   HEY YOU   2016 Feb 8, 11:18am  

justme says:"Sly humor,"

Thanks for compliment but I prefer "Asshole Trolling" roflmao.

16   tatupu70   2016 Feb 8, 11:21am  

Ironman says

tatupu70 says

No--just wondering why you ask me to provide support for something you claim you everyone already knows.

Does the word WHY really confuse you? Does it contain too many letters?

Nope. Does it confuse you? You keep refusing to answer my question.

17   bob2356   2016 Feb 8, 11:23am  

Ironman says

Instead of being a parrot and telling us what we already know, try telling us WHY the US spends double.

Corporate hospitals, profits built in every step of medical care, fee for service which means a HUGE cost of medical billing as well as much more aggressive (and expensive) treatment in many areas (especially surgery) the cost of advertising for health insurance, the cost of advertising for drugs, people insisting on expensive new drugs after seeing advertising for drugs, pharma's massive abuse of the patent system, lobbying poiticians, the cost of collecting insurance premiums, insisting on end of life intensive medical care rather than hospice, massive duplication of facilities and services so that corporate hospitals can compete for business, lack of large scale collective bargaining, malpractice lawsuits and insurance, etc., etc. etc. Did I mention corporate profits?

All of this has been documented and discussed ad infinitum for decades. You haven't heard of any of it yet?

Obamacare addresses exactly zero of these problems.

18   tatupu70   2016 Feb 8, 12:16pm  

Ironman says

This is the problem when you fools blindly support a campaign promise you know nothing about. You can't even provide a SIMPLE answer why healthcare costs are double in the US, yet you'll vote for a NEW proposed "fix" when you have ZERO knowledge what causes the original "problem".

There's a difference between "can't" and "haven't". I haven't given you one yet because I'm tired of your trolling games. Perhaps you'd like to answer why you jerked me around requesting data on US healthcare costs vs. the rest of the world if "everyone already knows". I'm still waiting.

Ironman says

You'll blindly support a program that FAILED in Bernie's home state but don't understand that government "projections" NEVER equal actual costs, like in this chart.

Not blindly. I support a program because similar style programs have been shown to work much, much better in every other civilized country.

You've already been told why the program in Vt. didn't work. As usual you ignore facts.

19   tatupu70   2016 Feb 8, 1:05pm  

Actually, here's what you said:

Ironman says

tatupu70 says

the US spends at least 2X more than every other country that has nationalized health care.

a blind assertion without knowing the facts behind it, doesn't support your opinion.

Ironman says

BULLSHIT... You don't even know WHY it's more costly here, so there's no way you can say a similar program will work here. That's a total LIE!

Of course I know. Everybody knows. Bob already posted a pretty good summary. Do you think it's a secret?

Ironman says

Ironman says

Paying for it would require an 11.5% payroll tax and a sliding-scale income tax with a top rate of 9.5%.

(Compare that to Bernie's current proposal of a 6.7% employer tax and a 2.2% income tax on individuals for his version of Medicare for All)

http://patrick.net/How+Single-Payer+Health+Care+Failed+in+Vermont

Nope. Nice try. The point is why did it cost more to do in Vt. (hint: Vermont is a state. The US is a country)

20   tatupu70   2016 Feb 8, 1:25pm  

Ironman says

Do you think people in Vermont require different and more costly medical care (except for Bob) than the rest of the country?

Nope. Of course not. Do you really not know why a State can't succeed as well as the country?

21   tatupu70   2016 Feb 8, 1:26pm  

Ironman says

Sure you do, that's why you posted a detailed list above of the causes.... Oh wait, you didn't.

Did you read Bob's list? If you're looking for the reasons, it's a good place for you to start. If you want, I can post some other links for you too.

22   tatupu70   2016 Feb 8, 1:50pm  

Ironman says

I'm not looking, I worked in the healthcare field my whole career, so I know the reasons.

Thanks for admitting that you are a troll. A normal person would have presented an argument based on their own experience why Bernie's plan won't work. But, we all know that you are not normal.
Ironman says

Please do, but I'll see pigs fly before you actually post them

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/us-healthcare-most-expensive-and-worst-performing/372828/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/why-does-health-care-cost-so-m/

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2014/11/it-is-time-to-get-mad-about-the-outrageous-cost-of-health-care/index.htm

Do you want more?

23   anonymous   2016 Feb 8, 1:57pm  

I worked in the healthcare field my whole career, so I know the reasons.

--------------

Eating shit does not constitute working a career in healthcare. Especially not when you volunteer to do it for free, you simple-simon motherless fuck

24   tatupu70   2016 Feb 8, 2:05pm  

Ironman says

That's the best comeback you can think of, to prove that you're not a clueless idiot and know NOTHING about how the health insurance industry works??

Well, first off--I wasn't trying to prove anything to you. I couldn't give a crap what you think. I just find it amusing that someone who has worked in the healthcare field their whole life has yet to offer anything based on their experience.

25   tatupu70   2016 Feb 8, 2:06pm  

Ironman says

Yep, answer this ONE question, if government single payer is the answer and they know how and can control costs, how did this happen?

Poor estimating?

Again--how do you gloss over the fact that EVERY other country with single payer has DRASTICALLY lower costs? There is no guesswork here. Just copy the best of the systems that already WORK.

26   tatupu70   2016 Feb 8, 2:46pm  

Ironman says

So, why hasn't our government already copied these systems with Medicare and Medicaid?

Because there are too many folks like you who vote for Republicans that take $$ from companies that LOVE the status quo and raping the US population.

Ironman says

What the fuck do you think I've been doing

Great--can you point me to the posts where you explain why single payer health care will NOT work here? Not a chart showing that projections were wrong. Reasons why single payer won't be much cheaper than the current system.

27   Ceffer   2016 Feb 8, 3:46pm  

What makes liberals think that they will get anything for the extra tax money than trinkets, or that the government having more money is some kind of guarantee of performance?

It's just the opposite. The more money you give them, the more pork barrel, and the less incentive to actually deliver anything when they think they can just keep diving deeper into the pot.

28   marcus   2016 Feb 8, 4:45pm  

Ceffer says

The more money you give them, the more pork barrel, and the less incentive to actually deliver anything when they think they can just keep diving deeper into the pot.

Yes, that does seem to be the meme we get from right wingers.

Meanwhile, some are capable of seeing all that government actually does. IT's amazing, if you were to actually take that information in. But of course, you won't.

When was it exactly, that government started supposedly getting so so terrible at using tax revenue funding productively or half way efficiently ?

Was it coincidentally when republicans started controlling congress ?

Because I recall a time when people didn't question things like, public run prisons, or the post office, or most public schools. Also, government always contracted a lot of construction type work, and infrastructure and so on, to private firms. So, it's very disingenuous to say that the government can't do anything. Look around you ! Pretty much, everywhere you look, you see evidence of effective government investment. It's EVERYWHERE !

29   bob2356   2016 Feb 8, 8:23pm  

Ironman says

tatupu70 says

Do you want more?

Yep, answer this ONE question, if government single payer is the answer and they know how and can control costs, how did this happen?

-

If you actually worked in health care your whole life, which I seriously doubt, then you know this chart is bullshit,. The numbers are nominal not inflation adjusted and the later additions to the programs included are in the actual cost but not the "estimated cost at time of enactment". The estimated cost of any expansion to the programs needs to be added back into the "estimated cost at time of enactment" to make the chart valid. Otherwise it's a one sided accounting entry. But with your total lack of math skills you don't know what this means anyway. Post the source next time along with the methodology, not just a pretty picture from rightwingnut.com. Never going to happen.

Not that you have any interest in actual real numbers or have the capacity to understand them, but medicare part a isn't 7.44 to 1 it's 1.6 to 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/21/jim-demints-claims-about-medicare-cost-estimates-from-1965/ The rest of the chart isn't any better.

So since you are so sure what won't work feel free to share what will. Oh yes I know, free market, more profits. It's worked so well already.

30   anonymous   2016 Feb 8, 9:17pm  

you are forgetting the payroll tax of ~8% on top of the 2.2% proposed on the backbone.

"The economic burden of the payroll tax falls almost entirely on the worker, regardless of whether the tax is remitted by the employer or the employee, as the employers’ share of payroll taxes is passed on to employees in the form of lower wages than would otherwise be paid." --wikipedia

the average parson under bernie the fuckhead sanders will be taking home about 10% LESS income per paycheck.

anyone on here who supports bernie is a threat to the average american and should be treated as such.

31   bob2356   2016 Feb 8, 9:24pm  

Ironman says

Would you prefer the numbers come from the Wall Street Journal instead?

Sorry no subscription. Looks like the WSJ aka the republican daily rag is recycling the same bogus numbers to me. The WSJ has certainly never ever printed an article that was a political hack job, Never, really, not ever.

Address the issue, don't post the same crap numbers back from a different source. Your chart is bullshit.Oh right, you can't address the issue because it involves third grade math which is far beyond you. .

bob2356 says

So since you are so sure what won't work feel free to share what will. Oh yes I know, free market, more profits. It's worked so well already.

Still waiting and will be forever.

Ah yes the farm animal reference. The signal that your sub microscopic intellect has once again been all used up.

32   FortWayne   2016 Feb 8, 9:30pm  

Dan8267 says

Wanting the uber-rich who got rich by exploiting others rather than producing wealth to pay their share of taxes is envy?

You were always a communist at heart anyway right... so it's ok to justify envy like that.

33   Dan8267   2016 Feb 8, 11:42pm  

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

Wanting the uber-rich who got rich by exploiting others rather than producing wealth to pay their share of taxes is envy?

You were always a communist at heart anyway right... so it's ok to justify envy like that.

How the fuck does having no respect for Goldman Sachs, a company that made billions destroying the economy, make me a communist? Oh wait, I forgot, you don't know the actual definitions of any of the political and economic words you use. You probably think a communist is a kind of tulip.

I have no envy, but I do have disgust for the rich who became so from stealing from others, legally or not. For those who actually produced their own wealth like inventors, entertainers, engineers, and doctors, I have complete respect. And the difference between those two sets of people is something a simple-minded buffoon like you will never comprehend.

Speaking of envy, though, is that why you hate happily married gays so much? Is it because gay married couples have better relationships with their children then you have with yours? Yeah, it's all starting to make sense.

34   bob2356   2016 Feb 9, 3:58am  

Ironman says

Translation: I can't dispute what was posted because it was verified by two sources, so I'll just resort to name calling.

The MAIN point being, since you decided to gloss over the entire thread, is that government programs virtually NEVER come in close to projections,

LOL. Verified by two sources? A picture from who knows where and a subscription only article from the WSJ that no one can read? What a joke. That's supposed to be some type of unimpeachable gold standard for proof? Contest the numbers in the article I posted, I'll wait even though it will be forever. . Being off by a factor of 700% or more like some of your "chart" isn't considered by normal people to be a valid talking point even within the alternative universe of the right wingnut echo chamber.

I didn't gloss over anything. I'm saying your numbers are crap, not that government programs don't grow. Your "chart" compares apples to oranges, it's too bad you don't have the math skills to understand that. Government programs do grow for many reasons. By inflation, by congress expanding them, by population expansion, etc., etc.. Who in 1965 when medicare was passed would have projected a decade of double digit inflation?

bob2356 says

bob2356 says

So since you are so sure what won't work feel free to share what will. Oh yes I know, free market, more profits. It's worked so well already.

Still waiting and will be forever.

Still waiting and will be forever.

Ironman says

bob2356 says

Ah yes the farm animal reference.

What other reason would you have for being such a fucking cranky old bastard?

You and dan are the ones that post about farm animal sex (and excrement, and gay sex) all day every day. I respond on occasion after you totally run out of argument and resort to posting about farm animal sex because you have nothing else to offer. Anyone obsessing about the subject as much as you do must be speaking from extensive personal experience.

35   tatupu70   2016 Feb 9, 4:59am  

tatupu70 says

Great--can you point me to the posts where you explain why single payer health care will NOT work here? Not a chart showing that projections were wrong. Reasons why single payer won't be much cheaper than the current system.

Still waiting.

36   tatupu70   2016 Feb 9, 7:19am  

Ironman says

It's been posted THREE times above. Having reading comprehension issues today?

Let me refresh your memory.

tatupu70 says

Great--can you point me to the posts where you explain why single payer health care will NOT work here? Not a chart showing that projections were wrong. Reasons why single payer won't be much cheaper than the current system.

If you've posted it above, just give me the comment#.

37   tatupu70   2016 Feb 9, 7:53am  

Ironman says

You still want to split hairs on percentages or get to the center of the problem that government SUCKS at ANY program they try to administrate. If they can't get it right when dealing with 1/6 to 1/7 of the population (seniors), how do you and Tatty boy think they can get it right when they administer "Medicare for All" for 320 MILLION people?

First--who says they aren't getting it right? As demographics change and the population ages, of course a program dealing with seniors will grow.

Have a look at administrative costs of government run vs. private insurance:

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004083

38   bob2356   2016 Feb 9, 8:30am  

Ironman says

Ironman says

The 1988 Medicare home-care benefit was supposed to cost $4 billion by 1993, but the actual cost was $10 billion, because many more people participated than expected.

The government doesn't do a census and doesn't know how many people are in a certain age group? How does the government "miss" this projection by 150% in only FIVE years?

Go look up Duggan v. Bowen 1988. A federal judge ordered Medicare to take off it's administrative controls on the program. That's how you miss a projection by 150%. The WSJ didn't mention this case? Shocking, simply shocking I tell you.

Ironman says

You still want to split hairs on percentages or get to the center of the problem that government SUCKS at ANY program they try to administrate. If they can't get it right when dealing with 1/6 to 1/7 of the population (seniors), how do you and Tatty boy think they can get it right when they administer "Medicare for All" for 320 MILLION people?

No the government doesn't suck at any program they try to administrate. So if private insurance is so great at adminstering why is the cost of health care in the US double all the government programs around the world?

I don't think they will get it right with Medicare for all. I've posted that on your threads at least a dozen times. Medicare is a poor program to base single payer on. If you worked in health care all your life then you should be aware of a field called geriatrics. They can help you with managing your dementia. Check it out, I'm concerned for you.

Why are you sweating this? The oligarchs that rule the health care industry, the people you worship, will never let anything cut into their astronomical profits. Any programs that come out will simply be thinly disguised public risk private profit corporate welfare like obamacare and medicare D.

bob2356 says

bob2356 says

bob2356 says

So since you are so sure what won't work feel free to share what will. Oh yes I know, free market, more profits. It's worked so well already.

Still waiting and will be forever.

Still waiting and will be forever.

Still waiting and will be forever.

39   tatupu70   2016 Feb 9, 8:39am  

Ironman says

Why is that? I want you to give me your answer, and then I'll give you mine.

I'm tired of playing your games. I'm still waiting for you to tell me why every other country in the world spends half what we do on health care but copying the best of their systems won't work here.

40   tatupu70   2016 Feb 9, 8:47am  

Ironman says

Translation: I don't know and don't have an answer.... again... so I'll just deflect it back on you to answer a question that was ALREADY answered above.

lol--why don't you answer the questions that Bob or I have asked you multiple, multiple times? Then I'll consider educating you again.

Comments 1 - 40 of 41       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions