7 ms·

Bernie Tax Calculator

34 points by keehun 11y ago

keehun 11y ago
Note: not an official website of the Sander's campaign. Also, let's keep it apolitical? What's interesting to me is that there's not yet a product-comparison-like table where you enter your income and relevant financial information (stocks, etc) and it would tell you how this candidate's tax idea would affect you. This calculator for Sander's idea is amazing, and I hope to see more of these for other candidates!
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  On the one hand, proof that a candidate's tax idea won't affect you might forestall FUD. On the other hand, I am absolutely disgusted by evaluating policy changes based solely on the impact to one's own pocket book.
  - pc86 11y ago
    The Adam Smith argument is that everyone should advocate for what is in their own best interest. Personally between this calculator and the more in-depth calculator it links to, I'm not going to vote for any candidate that promise to cause me to lose ~$300/mo in disposable income.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > The Adam Smith argument is that everyone should advocate for what is in their own best interest. The actual Adam Smith argument (that is, the one actually found in the Wealth of Nations [0]) is that different classes of people whose interests are more or less aligned with the public interest on matters of public affairs -- the former including both the landed aristocracy and wage laborers (though, in the latter case, he describes that class as being incapable of understanding their interest despite the fact that it is aligned with the common interest), the latter consisting of the capitalist class (though, not anticipating a term that would be coined around a century later than he wrote, he calls them "those who live by profit".) And that the last group is to be especially distrusted as their recommendations will consistently advance their own interest at the expense of the public interest. Smith was advocating that people be aware of the fact that people tend to advocate in their own narrow self-interest in public affairs as a safeguard against the threat he saw from certain powerful groups doing that (and, particularly, the danger he saw from business proprietors -- who were both aware of their interests and had interests opposed to the general interests -- manipulating wage-earners -- who he saw as having interests aligned with the common interest but being ill-equipped to recognize either their own interests or the public interest or to advocate for either -- into supporting the interests of the owners.) [0] Book I, Chapter XI, Part III, Conclusion of the Chapter
- notahacker 11y ago
  It'd also be useful to see comparisons between what they promised and what they actually delivered (particularly relevant for jurisdictions like the UK where lack of bipartisan agreement is rarely ever a factor in whether campaign promises get implemented)
- pc86 11y ago
  > Also, let's keep it apolitical? Uh, it's a tax calculator from a presidential candidate. How on Earth can you discuss that apolitically?
  - serf 11y ago
    >Uh, it's a tax calculator from a presidential candidate. How on Earth can you discuss that apolitically? with HN classics like 'needs a drop shadow', 'hijacks my back button', or 'UGH (saas name here) IN 2016? SHEESH.'
bobby_9x 11y ago
This is pretty useless. We still don't really know what his tax plan is. I heard him in an interview that the upper federal tax bracket will be 55%. This combined with state and local taxes means it will be closer to 75% (not including sales tax and countless other taxes that are paid). It's just like in Norway and Sweden (the countries he wants to emulate). On paper, it looks like a small amount. But when it actually comes down to it, it makes it nearly impossible for even things like startups to thrive. I also heard him say that the money will only come from 'greedy wallstreet executives' (I got a flyer in the mail saying exactly this). I think many people will be in for a rude awakening when the middle class has to foot the bill for all of this and the system is substandard compared to the rest of the world.
- codegeek 11y ago
  See this. This is bernie's official website page that lists the ways he plans to pay for his proposals. https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/ https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-pro...
- Afforess 11y ago
  Not only that, but this whole health plan debate is weird for those of us in high deductible HSA plans. My health insurance costs negative $1000 ($-1000), because my company pays me extra if I choose an HSA plan, and the company covers the high deductible premium. What the heck happens to those if health insurance goes single payer?
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > Not only that, but this whole health plan debate is weird for those of us in high deductible HSA plans. Yes, and don't forget about the foregone tax savings from having an HSA account in the first place (which this site does not take into account). This site is a great example of how incomplete information can be misleading. For most people reading this site, the bulk of the impact would not be from the income tax or the health insurance costs, but the secondary impact that Sanders's plans would have on their other assets.
  - 11y ago
oxguy3 11y ago
Should probably make it a little bit more obvious that this isn't an official website; the way the logo appears at the top right now makes it look way too official.
- holmak 11y ago
  I noticed that too. It amuses me that it just takes a couple of tasteful red and blue stripes to make something look official!
mudil 11y ago
I came from Soviet Union. I don't have any illusions about socialist ideas. Lots of young people here might have illusions. But I don't.
- givinguflac 11y ago
  There's a huge difference between Socialism and Democratic Socialism, surprised you wouldn't know that.
  - matthewbauer 11y ago
    Well the Soviets would have considered themselves Democratic Socialists. It's not like anyone ever advertises themselves as undemocratic in an official way like that. I really think Bernie is best penned down as a "social democrat". I don't understand why he calls himself a socialist?
    - givinguflac 11y ago
      I'd recommend you actually read about the differences; one of them still has Capitalism, the other doesn't. It's a massive difference.
  - jeremyt 11y ago
    Perhaps you could explain the difference, because I don't see it.
    - keehun 11y ago
      "Democratic Socialism" the best I understand it seeks to further Democracy by putting the power back into the social class, not the oligarchy as the US (in my eyes) become. I think it's putting the "we the people" back into power. Look at Bernie's top-priority messages. Get rid of Citizens United (money in elections) and get rid of big banks. If those two things are accomplished, "we the people" would have more power and held less at-hostage by the oligarchies at power... But just my thought. This video does a decent job: https://www.facebook.com/DemocraticSocialist/videos/575403562607686/?pnref=story https://www.facebook.com/DemocraticSocialist/videos/57540356...
tn13 11y ago
I come from India and if USA is going socialist path I think I will better go back to India. Socialism can make even a big ship sink faster than you can imagine. I think American youth has developed a sense of entitlement and no clue about rest of the world, that is why people like Bernie are getting such support.
- wrong_variable 11y ago
  India's problem was never socialism vs capitalism. India's fundamental problem is systemic corruption and heavy bureaucracy. Those things can arise under a capitalist or socialist system.
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > India's problem was never socialism vs capitalism. India's fundamental problem is systemic corruption and heavy bureaucracy. Socialism, in the context of poverty, inherently leads to corruption. This is something that's hard to understand for people who've only ever seen socialism and communism in countries that are already quite wealthy (e.g. Western Europe). I say this as someone who is from West Bengal, which has had the world's longest-serving, democratically-elected Communist government.
  - holmak 11y ago
    Regardless of how you categorize the system, having more money flowing through an organization increases the incentive for the members of that system to do something unethical to take advantage of it.
  - kamaal 11y ago
    As an Indian who has lived in both majorly socialist and now a mixed economy India. I can tell you corruption is way worse under a more capitalist society. Reason is simple, if people are making nice profits why not ask them to pay a little extra bribe. Every one starting from the government to the private citizen is involved. Scams run in the tune lacs of crores, government servants think they are entitled to a bribe, you will be hard pressed to get a driving license without greasing some one's palms(I was asked by a license agent, why I was worked up about paying a bribe while I was getting paid well as a programmer), the postman thinks if he delivers a important document like a passport he deserves a bribe(because you are going to US, and will earn well anyway, why not pay me a bribe tip here), clerks in the income tax office rake up all kind of false flags when questioned they will tell you, they put it out if you pay a small bribe. The list is endless. Every single activity or a movement of a file, has a bribe fee on it. Every single one, no matter what activity you do. Lastly this isn't just government corruption. Private companies have rampant corruption issues. Even in top MNC's managers routinely favor people from their states and people who speak their mother tongue. Promotions, raise, stock bonuses, salary bonuses, foreign travel and many such things are decided based on which state you come from, which language you talk, may be even caste and religion too. God save if you, if you don't have a match with your manager. But surprisingly every body thinks, every one apart from them is corrupt. So corruption is somebody else's problem. The very same manager who cheats openly will complain why India isn't making progress because of corruption. Irony. One guy even told me he was not cheating or doing anything wrong. He was simply "Helping" people from his state.
STRiDEX 11y ago
Tax rate needs to be area dependent. 150k in the bay area isn't the same as 150k even just a few hours in any direction. I don't know how they'd implement city based tax rates, but I'm never going to own a house here if I keep getting taxed 50% and more. Sanders calculator says I'd be paying more.
- pc86 11y ago
  It's Federal income tax for a reason. Are you suggesting people get a cost-of-living adjustment for federal taxes?
  - STRiDEX 11y ago
    Yes, see you get it.
    - pc86 11y ago
      Move somewhere cheaper.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Deductions are basically exactly this. They come out of top bracket income too. Purchase an expensive house on a big loan? Get a bigger reduction in federal tax liability than someone in a lower bracket that is buying a cheaper home.
- eigenvector 11y ago
  But the reason why you're being paid 150k is _because_ of the high cost of living in the Bay Area. That's why people doing the same job in Kansas are not making as much money as you.
  - STRiDEX 11y ago
    If the people in Kansas were doing my job they'd get paid the same because they wouldn't be in Kansas.
- 11y ago
bsbechtel 11y ago
It's not just about how much in taxes you would pay; it's about the risk of you actually getting quality care for what you are forced to pay in taxes. The risk of that care not being adequate is significant...consider that Bernie Sanders is Chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee which oversaw people dying in waiting room floors of VA hospitals. Sanders originally tried to blame the Koch brothers for this episode instead of fixing it. The voters had very little recourse like they do in the free market where they can just go to a different healthcare provider, because they are forced to pay taxes for the VA hospitals either way. The same goes for the Flint water issue in Michigan as well. The citizens of Flint are being forced to pay for water that they can't drink or use, and they were lied to about the risks it posed to their health for almost a year before the truth came out. This is the real risk you face with any government program, regardless of how little a tax calculator website will tell you it is going to cost you.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >The voters had very little recourse like they do in the free market where they can just go to a different healthcare provider, because they are forced to pay taxes for the VA hospitals either way. The average voter does not have enough income to have an actual choice. The way it goes is that you pick your GP from a list (so you have a little bit of choice there), and when you have a significant issue, your GP works with a specialist and your insurance company to decide if you qualify for any further care. You can get it without the insurance helping you, but you are risking bankruptcy doing such. As it stands, other countries spend less on health care with better outcomes. So we can definitely improve the system. That being said, I'll support privatized healthcare if we can get the same done for police care and CPS. If you don't like the people protecting you, then you can get seek out new ones.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    Here's a program for market-based healthcare reform: 1. Eliminate incentives for employer-based insurance. Give legal protection to insurance cooperatives, where individual people could come together to buy insurance as a group. 2. Eliminate restrictions on buying insurance across state lines. This will take care of state-level regulations that drive costs up. 3. Eliminate artificial caps on the number of seats in medical schools, currently set by the AMA with government backing. 4. Loosen other requirements for medical licensure, like four years of undergraduate study in a totally unrelated program. Why are the people of America paying for Doctors' underwater basket-weaving courses? This and the previous point are a political minefield, so you can accomplish mostly the same by letting Nurses or Physicians Assistants to do most or all of a doctor's job. People can still choose to spend more on AMA-approved doctors, but it should be their own prerogative with their own money. 5. Institute an (at least initially) government-backed catastrophic insurance program for when people have ridiculous amounts of medical bills that they can't afford. This is probably what the market would have produced over the last century if not for government meddling. 6. High-deductible plans + health savings accounts are actually a pretty good idea. It puts people directly on the hook for their routine medical expenses, so they shop around and find lower prices. Milton Friedman wrote a great piece with some of these ideas in 2001: http://www.thepublicinterest.com/archives/2001winter/article1.html http://www.thepublicinterest.com/archives/2001winter/article...
captn3m0 11y ago
Very minor nitpick: It shows "higher", even the difference is exactly $0.00. Inputs: 251429 (Income) and 4955 (Health Insurance).
twoodfin 11y ago
Fairly certain this calculator fails to account for Sanders' proposed lifting of the Social Security tax cap for (presumably household?) earnings over $250,000. That's a fake 6.2% and real 12.4% marginal income tax hike. Also the brackets don't match up with this analysis[2], though I have no idea who's right. That analysis also suggests Sanders' plan adds another employer-paid payroll tax of 6.2%! I'm not sure how that overlaps with the "Medicare for All" tax. Let's assume they're not cumulative. The result is still something like a real 60% marginal rate on a household with two $150,000 earners. Before state and local taxes, of course. EDIT: No, of course, the 2.2% employee and 6.2% employer taxes are cumulative! It's disingenuous to imply that your wages aren't being taxed if your employer pays the tax instead of you. [1] http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senato... [2] https://berniesanders.com/issues/strengthen-and-expand-social-security/ https://berniesanders.com/issues/strengthen-and-expand-socia...
- jstelly 11y ago
  Yes, this looks like a simplified picture that is much more incremental than what is actually proposed on the Bernie Sanders site: https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/ https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-pro... The "more accurate" calculator linked from github is similarly limited.
mchahn 11y ago
I watch a lot of UK television, even though I'm not an ex-pat or anything. I just find it better than US television. So I get a lot of insight into the UK culture. One thing I see is that the the citizens of the UK are actually very happy with their socialized healthcare. There are very few negative jokes about it. When I see how they take advantage of it, especially with home-care, I am extremely jealous.

34 points by keehun 11y ago

Note: not an official website of the Sander's campaign. Also, let's keep it apolitical? What's interesting to me is that there's not yet a product-comparison-like table where you enter your income and relevant financial information (stocks, etc) and it would tell you how this candidate's tax idea would affect you. This calculator for Sander's idea is amazing, and I hope to see more of these for other candidates!

sliverstorm 11y ago
On the one hand, proof that a candidate's tax idea won't affect you might forestall FUD. On the other hand, I am absolutely disgusted by evaluating policy changes based solely on the impact to one's own pocket book.
- pc86 11y ago
  The Adam Smith argument is that everyone should advocate for what is in their own best interest. Personally between this calculator and the more in-depth calculator it links to, I'm not going to vote for any candidate that promise to cause me to lose ~$300/mo in disposable income.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > The Adam Smith argument is that everyone should advocate for what is in their own best interest. The actual Adam Smith argument (that is, the one actually found in the Wealth of Nations [0]) is that different classes of people whose interests are more or less aligned with the public interest on matters of public affairs -- the former including both the landed aristocracy and wage laborers (though, in the latter case, he describes that class as being incapable of understanding their interest despite the fact that it is aligned with the common interest), the latter consisting of the capitalist class (though, not anticipating a term that would be coined around a century later than he wrote, he calls them "those who live by profit".) And that the last group is to be especially distrusted as their recommendations will consistently advance their own interest at the expense of the public interest. Smith was advocating that people be aware of the fact that people tend to advocate in their own narrow self-interest in public affairs as a safeguard against the threat he saw from certain powerful groups doing that (and, particularly, the danger he saw from business proprietors -- who were both aware of their interests and had interests opposed to the general interests -- manipulating wage-earners -- who he saw as having interests aligned with the common interest but being ill-equipped to recognize either their own interests or the public interest or to advocate for either -- into supporting the interests of the owners.) [0] Book I, Chapter XI, Part III, Conclusion of the Chapter
notahacker 11y ago
It'd also be useful to see comparisons between what they promised and what they actually delivered (particularly relevant for jurisdictions like the UK where lack of bipartisan agreement is rarely ever a factor in whether campaign promises get implemented)
pc86 11y ago
> Also, let's keep it apolitical? Uh, it's a tax calculator from a presidential candidate. How on Earth can you discuss that apolitically?
- serf 11y ago
  >Uh, it's a tax calculator from a presidential candidate. How on Earth can you discuss that apolitically? with HN classics like 'needs a drop shadow', 'hijacks my back button', or 'UGH (saas name here) IN 2016? SHEESH.'

bobby_9x 11y ago

This is pretty useless. We still don't really know what his tax plan is. I heard him in an interview that the upper federal tax bracket will be 55%. This combined with state and local taxes means it will be closer to 75% (not including sales tax and countless other taxes that are paid). It's just like in Norway and Sweden (the countries he wants to emulate). On paper, it looks like a small amount. But when it actually comes down to it, it makes it nearly impossible for even things like startups to thrive. I also heard him say that the money will only come from 'greedy wallstreet executives' (I got a flyer in the mail saying exactly this). I think many people will be in for a rude awakening when the middle class has to foot the bill for all of this and the system is substandard compared to the rest of the world.

codegeek 11y ago
See this. This is bernie's official website page that lists the ways he plans to pay for his proposals. https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/ https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-pro...
Afforess 11y ago
Not only that, but this whole health plan debate is weird for those of us in high deductible HSA plans. My health insurance costs negative $1000 ($-1000), because my company pays me extra if I choose an HSA plan, and the company covers the high deductible premium. What the heck happens to those if health insurance goes single payer?
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > Not only that, but this whole health plan debate is weird for those of us in high deductible HSA plans. Yes, and don't forget about the foregone tax savings from having an HSA account in the first place (which this site does not take into account). This site is a great example of how incomplete information can be misleading. For most people reading this site, the bulk of the impact would not be from the income tax or the health insurance costs, but the secondary impact that Sanders's plans would have on their other assets.
- 11y ago

oxguy3 11y ago

Should probably make it a little bit more obvious that this isn't an official website; the way the logo appears at the top right now makes it look way too official.

holmak 11y ago
I noticed that too. It amuses me that it just takes a couple of tasteful red and blue stripes to make something look official!

mudil 11y ago

I came from Soviet Union. I don't have any illusions about socialist ideas. Lots of young people here might have illusions. But I don't.

givinguflac 11y ago
There's a huge difference between Socialism and Democratic Socialism, surprised you wouldn't know that.
- matthewbauer 11y ago
  Well the Soviets would have considered themselves Democratic Socialists. It's not like anyone ever advertises themselves as undemocratic in an official way like that. I really think Bernie is best penned down as a "social democrat". I don't understand why he calls himself a socialist?
  - givinguflac 11y ago
    I'd recommend you actually read about the differences; one of them still has Capitalism, the other doesn't. It's a massive difference.
- jeremyt 11y ago
  Perhaps you could explain the difference, because I don't see it.
  - keehun 11y ago
    "Democratic Socialism" the best I understand it seeks to further Democracy by putting the power back into the social class, not the oligarchy as the US (in my eyes) become. I think it's putting the "we the people" back into power. Look at Bernie's top-priority messages. Get rid of Citizens United (money in elections) and get rid of big banks. If those two things are accomplished, "we the people" would have more power and held less at-hostage by the oligarchies at power... But just my thought. This video does a decent job: https://www.facebook.com/DemocraticSocialist/videos/575403562607686/?pnref=story https://www.facebook.com/DemocraticSocialist/videos/57540356...

tn13 11y ago

I come from India and if USA is going socialist path I think I will better go back to India. Socialism can make even a big ship sink faster than you can imagine. I think American youth has developed a sense of entitlement and no clue about rest of the world, that is why people like Bernie are getting such support.

wrong_variable 11y ago
India's problem was never socialism vs capitalism. India's fundamental problem is systemic corruption and heavy bureaucracy. Those things can arise under a capitalist or socialist system.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > India's problem was never socialism vs capitalism. India's fundamental problem is systemic corruption and heavy bureaucracy. Socialism, in the context of poverty, inherently leads to corruption. This is something that's hard to understand for people who've only ever seen socialism and communism in countries that are already quite wealthy (e.g. Western Europe). I say this as someone who is from West Bengal, which has had the world's longest-serving, democratically-elected Communist government.
- holmak 11y ago
  Regardless of how you categorize the system, having more money flowing through an organization increases the incentive for the members of that system to do something unethical to take advantage of it.
- kamaal 11y ago
  As an Indian who has lived in both majorly socialist and now a mixed economy India. I can tell you corruption is way worse under a more capitalist society. Reason is simple, if people are making nice profits why not ask them to pay a little extra bribe. Every one starting from the government to the private citizen is involved. Scams run in the tune lacs of crores, government servants think they are entitled to a bribe, you will be hard pressed to get a driving license without greasing some one's palms(I was asked by a license agent, why I was worked up about paying a bribe while I was getting paid well as a programmer), the postman thinks if he delivers a important document like a passport he deserves a bribe(because you are going to US, and will earn well anyway, why not pay me a bribe tip here), clerks in the income tax office rake up all kind of false flags when questioned they will tell you, they put it out if you pay a small bribe. The list is endless. Every single activity or a movement of a file, has a bribe fee on it. Every single one, no matter what activity you do. Lastly this isn't just government corruption. Private companies have rampant corruption issues. Even in top MNC's managers routinely favor people from their states and people who speak their mother tongue. Promotions, raise, stock bonuses, salary bonuses, foreign travel and many such things are decided based on which state you come from, which language you talk, may be even caste and religion too. God save if you, if you don't have a match with your manager. But surprisingly every body thinks, every one apart from them is corrupt. So corruption is somebody else's problem. The very same manager who cheats openly will complain why India isn't making progress because of corruption. Irony. One guy even told me he was not cheating or doing anything wrong. He was simply "Helping" people from his state.

STRiDEX 11y ago

Tax rate needs to be area dependent. 150k in the bay area isn't the same as 150k even just a few hours in any direction. I don't know how they'd implement city based tax rates, but I'm never going to own a house here if I keep getting taxed 50% and more. Sanders calculator says I'd be paying more.

pc86 11y ago
It's Federal income tax for a reason. Are you suggesting people get a cost-of-living adjustment for federal taxes?
- STRiDEX 11y ago
  Yes, see you get it.
  - pc86 11y ago
    Move somewhere cheaper.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Deductions are basically exactly this. They come out of top bracket income too. Purchase an expensive house on a big loan? Get a bigger reduction in federal tax liability than someone in a lower bracket that is buying a cheaper home.
eigenvector 11y ago
But the reason why you're being paid 150k is _because_ of the high cost of living in the Bay Area. That's why people doing the same job in Kansas are not making as much money as you.
- STRiDEX 11y ago
  If the people in Kansas were doing my job they'd get paid the same because they wouldn't be in Kansas.
11y ago

bsbechtel 11y ago

It's not just about how much in taxes you would pay; it's about the risk of you actually getting quality care for what you are forced to pay in taxes. The risk of that care not being adequate is significant...consider that Bernie Sanders is Chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee which oversaw people dying in waiting room floors of VA hospitals. Sanders originally tried to blame the Koch brothers for this episode instead of fixing it. The voters had very little recourse like they do in the free market where they can just go to a different healthcare provider, because they are forced to pay taxes for the VA hospitals either way. The same goes for the Flint water issue in Michigan as well. The citizens of Flint are being forced to pay for water that they can't drink or use, and they were lied to about the risks it posed to their health for almost a year before the truth came out. This is the real risk you face with any government program, regardless of how little a tax calculator website will tell you it is going to cost you.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>The voters had very little recourse like they do in the free market where they can just go to a different healthcare provider, because they are forced to pay taxes for the VA hospitals either way. The average voter does not have enough income to have an actual choice. The way it goes is that you pick your GP from a list (so you have a little bit of choice there), and when you have a significant issue, your GP works with a specialist and your insurance company to decide if you qualify for any further care. You can get it without the insurance helping you, but you are risking bankruptcy doing such. As it stands, other countries spend less on health care with better outcomes. So we can definitely improve the system. That being said, I'll support privatized healthcare if we can get the same done for police care and CPS. If you don't like the people protecting you, then you can get seek out new ones.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  Here's a program for market-based healthcare reform: 1. Eliminate incentives for employer-based insurance. Give legal protection to insurance cooperatives, where individual people could come together to buy insurance as a group. 2. Eliminate restrictions on buying insurance across state lines. This will take care of state-level regulations that drive costs up. 3. Eliminate artificial caps on the number of seats in medical schools, currently set by the AMA with government backing. 4. Loosen other requirements for medical licensure, like four years of undergraduate study in a totally unrelated program. Why are the people of America paying for Doctors' underwater basket-weaving courses? This and the previous point are a political minefield, so you can accomplish mostly the same by letting Nurses or Physicians Assistants to do most or all of a doctor's job. People can still choose to spend more on AMA-approved doctors, but it should be their own prerogative with their own money. 5. Institute an (at least initially) government-backed catastrophic insurance program for when people have ridiculous amounts of medical bills that they can't afford. This is probably what the market would have produced over the last century if not for government meddling. 6. High-deductible plans + health savings accounts are actually a pretty good idea. It puts people directly on the hook for their routine medical expenses, so they shop around and find lower prices. Milton Friedman wrote a great piece with some of these ideas in 2001: http://www.thepublicinterest.com/archives/2001winter/article1.html http://www.thepublicinterest.com/archives/2001winter/article...

captn3m0 11y ago

Very minor nitpick: It shows "higher", even the difference is exactly $0.00. Inputs: 251429 (Income) and 4955 (Health Insurance).

twoodfin 11y ago

Fairly certain this calculator fails to account for Sanders' proposed lifting of the Social Security tax cap for (presumably household?) earnings over $250,000. That's a fake 6.2% and real 12.4% marginal income tax hike. Also the brackets don't match up with this analysis[2], though I have no idea who's right. That analysis also suggests Sanders' plan adds another employer-paid payroll tax of 6.2%! I'm not sure how that overlaps with the "Medicare for All" tax. Let's assume they're not cumulative. The result is still something like a real 60% marginal rate on a household with two $150,000 earners. Before state and local taxes, of course. EDIT: No, of course, the 2.2% employee and 6.2% employer taxes are cumulative! It's disingenuous to imply that your wages aren't being taxed if your employer pays the tax instead of you. [1] http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senato... [2] https://berniesanders.com/issues/strengthen-and-expand-social-security/ https://berniesanders.com/issues/strengthen-and-expand-socia...

jstelly 11y ago
Yes, this looks like a simplified picture that is much more incremental than what is actually proposed on the Bernie Sanders site: https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/ https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-pro... The "more accurate" calculator linked from github is similarly limited.

mchahn 11y ago

I watch a lot of UK television, even though I'm not an ex-pat or anything. I just find it better than US television. So I get a lot of insight into the UK culture. One thing I see is that the the citizens of the UK are actually very happy with their socialized healthcare. There are very few negative jokes about it. When I see how they take advantage of it, especially with home-care, I am extremely jealous.