Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders' Political Revolution Is a $15 Trillion Tax Hike

Even middle class earners would be hit with a sizable tax increase under Sanders' plans.

|

350.org—Flickr

On the heels of a surprise victory in last night's Michigan primary, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders will square off against Hillary Clinton again tonight in another Democratic presidential debate. Before you watch the two candidates go at it again, it's worth looking into a recent study breaking down Sanders' tax plans. 

The short version is that Sanders would raise taxes—and he'd raise them a lot, on the middle class as well as the wealthy.

In total, Sanders would raise taxes by about $15.3 trillion over the course a decade, according to an analysis from the Tax Policy Center, via more than two dozen different tax hikes. And although Sanders tax hikes would be concentrated amongst high earners, just about everyone would pay more.

This would substantially cut average incomes. Sanders would raise the average tax burden in the country by about $9,000, and decrease after-tax income by about 12.4 percent, according to TPC's estimate. Extremely wealthy people would bear the brunt of the hike, with the richest 0.1 percent paying about $3 million more in 2017 than they would with no changes—equal to nearly half (45 percent) of their average pre-tax income of $6.9 million.

But the middle class would face a significant tax hike too: with those in the middle quintile of the income range facing a tax increase of about $4,700, resulting in an average decrease in after-tax income of about 8.5 percent.

That's worth repeating: With Sanders' plans in place, middle-class earners would face a nearly 9 percent loss in after-tax income.

The TPC analysis makes clear that these tax hikes would have significant economic effects of the kind that most would describe as negative. "The increases in marginal tax rates under the plan would reduce incentives to work, save, and invest," the report says. Sanders' tax plans would also end up "significantly reducing incentives to invest and increasing tax distortions in the allocation of capital."

One thing those tax hikes wouldn't do is substantially decrease the national debt: Most of the money raised would be plowed into new government spending

The Sanders campaign argues that it's unfair to look at these tax hikes without analyzing the government expansions that they'd pay for. And it's certainly true that he'd offer a far more in the way of government services, including, most notably, a single-payer health care system—effectively a nationalization of the health insurance industry—his campaign estimates would cost about $1.38 trillion annually. But a credible independent estimate suggests the cost would likely be far higher, probably on the order of $2.5 trillion per year. So fully implementing his program would likely require a lot more than $15 trillion in tax hikes.

The sort of across the board tax hikes that Sanders proposes would represent a radical shift from recent history. As the TPC report states: "His proposals would raise taxes on work, saving, and investment, in some cases to rates well beyond recent historical experience in the US." In effect, they'd be an unprecedented experiment in rapidly and radically expanding government in the United States.

On the campaign trail, Bernie Sanders often talks about starting a political revolution. So it's worth remembering that this experiment is at least part of what that revolution looks like. 

(Correction: I originally wrote that middle-quintile earners would face a tax hike of about $4,500 or 8.9 percent of their average income. The correct figures are $4,700 and 8.5 percent.

NEXT: Dems Urge Debate Moderators to Ask Clinton and Sanders About Abortion

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Whatever – still pretty sure spending and tax policies are originated in Congress.

    1. For now…

    2. So cute.

      Congress has spent the last several years rubberstamping executive demands for moar money NOW!

      1. “Congress has spent the last several years rubberstamping executive demands for moar money NOW!”

        Go look at spending trajectories before and after Republicans took control of the House in 2010.

        I know libertarians like to believe we’re always DOOOOOMMMMEED but the Republican Congress definitely kept spending down compared to what it would have been if Obama had his way.

        1. I’m sure you’re right, Irish. I’m just so peeved with the Repubs I tend to hyperbolize. And on the intertoobz, even.

        2. We’re still doooooomed even if the Republicans did slow spending a bit. Fact of the matter is that Congress needs to go sharply net-negative on spending (= saving and paying down debt) for several years to save us, and they’re not brave enough to do that.

        3. You’re comparing pre-TARP and post-TARP though. What was supposed to be a “one-time” spending hike of 800 billion by Bush became the new baseline for Obama.

  2. “…Before you watch the two candidates go at it again,…”

    You don’t have to worry about that; “before” I watch those two will include just about the rest of my life, unless I get stuck in some waiting room.

    1. There is a lot of good TV to see, why waste it watching a debate?

      1. Comrade Sanders to the rescue, one TV channel, no off switch.

        1. We don’t need 23 channels when children are starving.

        2. Welcome to “room 101”, Winston Smith. Now, most may call it “Stockholm,” but we’d kindly ask you think of this high living standard as being a kind of torture, at least in a roundabout way, okay?

      2. The previous 2 Republican debates were some of the best TV I’ve seen in years. Last night’s, not so much.

  3. The Sanders campaign argues that it’s unfair to look at these tax hikes without analyzing the government expansions that they’d pay for.

    Moar taxes AND moar government control?!?!?! SIGN ME UP!

    /derp

  4. But the middle class would face a significant tax hike too: with those in the middle quintile of the income range facing a tax increase of about $4,500, resulting in an average decrease in after-tax income of about 8.9 percent.

    Do the actual details of the candidates’ proposals really matter? Have any of them ever got passed exactly what the proposal was during the campaign? I understand examining the proposals as proxies for the candidate’s overall approach to the role of government and as a good idea for what the starting point in negotiations would be but so much time seems to be spent haggling over “they’ll lose $4500! no, they’ll gain $200!” when it’s so meaningless.

    1. Well i guess my problem is them selling you on things that aren’t realistic and going for it based on rosy views (like ACA $2500/year savings). And then once it is implemented, you can’t get rid of it.

      1. its true. all the republicans health care plans that ive heard (which is only a couple, so at least a couple) at least talk about universal coverage. “repeal obamacare and do a different version, with more MARKETS” or something like that. obamas biggest legacy is probly gonna be shifting the entire debate (about pretty much everything) at least a couple standard deviations to the left.

        1. Yep. And this is why the party that keeps telling us the world will be uninhabitable unless we Do Something about climate change then used its control of Congress and the executive NOT to force through climate change legalisation but to pass Obamacare.

          1. “…the world will be uninhabitable…”

            Link?

    2. Look, for a mere $4,500 Uncle Bernie is going to not only give you a Scandinavian style welfare state with all the trimmings, he’s also going to streamline your deodorant buying process. That’s not too shabby.

      1. It’s always been a better option to just stroll outside your grass hut to the river bank and rub some mud under your arms to control that pesky body odor. Who knows that the Koch brothers put in that deodorant anyway, it will probably kill you!

        1. Ah, but worse, is what they put in the river! No-win!

        2. That grass hut, you didn’t build it.

          1. +1 ceremonial wooly mammoth tusk

      2. Look, for a mere $4,500 Uncle Bernie is going to not only give you a Scandinavian style welfare state

        Unfortunately, he isn’t. Scandinavian style welfare states require a level of social control and conformity that Sanders isn’t promising to impose, for the simple reason that he would get lynched if he tried.

    3. Regardless, we should all be okay with a decrease in after-tax income of 9%. Because Bernie is also going to make everything cheaper. Don’t you understand that once the government is in charge of producing deodorant and they are only making one kind, the product will suddenly become more plentiful and cheaper.

      When in history has socialism ever led to something other than abundant goods and lower prices !?!?!?!

      1. Regardless, we should all be okay with a decrease in after-tax income of 9%

        And no way any of that will be wasted or stolen, and just in general disappear down a rat hole in DC. Because the magical Berninator will suddenly make everyone in government more honest.

        /derpity durrrr!

        1. ^This.

          The money would disappear into a black hole with no noticeable change in anything other than our lifestyle. Sanders and his supporters should get out of politics and into a woodchipper.

          1. Why can’t you think of the poor lobbyists, bureaucrats, and other assorted parasites?

          2. The money will reappear in dachas in Hawaii.

        2. We just need the right Top Men!!!

          Plus, when people only have one deodorant option, there will be less reason for politicians to steal money from the government. There won’t be any reason to steal it because there won’t be any luxuries available to buy with the money. It’s not like people would ever consider finding a way to buy/sell/transport unapproved goods outside of the official government channels.

          1. Well, they said we’d never win the drug war and… oh wait, never mind.

  5. OT: Baltimore school officers charged in student-slapping incident

    Video of the March 1 encounter outside Baltimore’s REACH! Partnership School went viral on social media, spurring an investigation.

    1. And they would have gotten away with too, if it wasn’t for those meddling kids and their social media.

    2. Not that the students probably didn’t deserve a good slapping, but we also need someone to slap the officers who slapped those kids.

      This is just so wrong:

      “Baltimore school police officers”

      Really? When I was a kid, there were no school police officers and we all survived. What the hell has brought us to this level of societal decay?

      1. I’m pretty sure it’s been all the butt sex, Mexicans, and weed.

      2. Out of an abundance of caution, shouldn’t we just close all the schools for a few years?

    3. Shoot a kid and face no charges. Slap a kid face charges. We may not be arriving at these decisions from a rational perspective.

      1. This IS rational to the average moron in this society.

      2. The dead are no bother, but the living can be a bothersome fly to the state’s dogs.

  6. I have an idea. Call me crazy but, what if everyone just pays for their own shit?

    1. You’re crazy! But it just might work.

    2. Crazy? You are clearly mad.

    3. Nonsense. They might spend their money on things that Our Betters don’t want them to. It would never work.

      1. And on this, Hillary and Bernie agree.

        Can’t find the Hillary quote from several years ago where she basically said that tax increases were good because government knows better than the little people on how money should be spent.

    4. But…what if I can’t afford to buy all the things I DESERVE?!??!?!

      /millenialderp

      1. That won’t be a problem. Elect a socialist to run the country and you’ll get exactly what you deserve. But you won’t want it.

    5. Rat bagging teahadist goat fucker!

  7. Yo, fuck Bernie Sanders. Guy never held a job until he was 40 years old, and he wants to steal from those who’ve actually earned money?

    1. You can’t steal anything* unless you’re in a position of power. And you can’t earn anything unless you’re not.

      * in the case of intern ass, other rules may apply.

    2. Nobody ever said it was a great system, but dammit, it’s *our* system.

    3. “Yo, fuck Bernie Sanders. Guy never held a job until he was 40 years old, and he wants to steal from those who’ve actually earned money?”

      Are you saying amateur journalism about how much women fantasize about rape doesn’t count as a job?

      1. That’s more of a hobby, innit?

    4. Exactly, the only job this nitwit has ever had on a steady basis is gov’t.

    5. Guy never held a job until he was 40 years old, and he wants to steal from those who’ve actually earned money?

      Bernie’s essentially the Jesus Christ of Occupy Wall Street morons.

  8. OT: Lee Sedol lost the first game to Alpha Go. The age of general purpose AIs is nigh.

    1. “The age of general purpose AIs is nigh.”

      Only if that general purpose is playing Go… *sigh*

  9. And his supporters don’t care because they are entitled college kids who don’t earn anything at the moment

    1. Many of them do have jobs. They just think being paid what is historically speaking a king’s ransom to sit in an air conditioned space and do some trivial task from a medieval peasant’s perspective is an unconscionable crime against them.

    2. Or the 1% who can afford to take a hit.

      You don’t see the actual middle class feeling the Bern.

  10. Yeah but think about all the free shit we will get for that extra tax! At least twice as much!

    1. and since its coming through the efficient, amiable, benevolent bureaucracy its will be the finest shot ever to pass a sphincter.

      1. *shit sigh typo ruins the whole joke

        1. Shot works too…$ shot.

  11. This would substantially cut average incomes.

    Durr, but you’d get all the services you ever need. You really wouldn’t need any income at all.

    /amsoc

    1. My kids appear to believe this. They’re fine with earning nothing if someone else will care for them.

      I can’t figure out how to convince them that this is bad.

      1. They’re fine with earning nothing if someone else will care for them.

        Remind them that whoever pays the piper calls the tune. Attach some links to proposals that welfare recipients be drug tested.

      2. Introduce them to the concepts of “slave labor” and “prisoner contraband inspection,” those being the categories of people who don’t get paid and get taken care of.

  12. Assuming they can’t confiscate wealth, how many people would they need to tax at 100% the first year to get to that $1.5T increase?

    How many the second year?

    1. I think he needs at least 2.5 trillion more…2 trillion for healthcare, 200B for infra, 30B for leave, 70B for college, + SS, daycare, youth conscription

      And this doesn’t even include running 0.5 trillion deficits right now.

      1. And there’s NO WAY the costs of healthcare, family leave, college tuition, SS, or daycare would increase after this. INCONCEIVABLE!

        1. I am seeing free nothing. I see govt subsidies added to out of pocket costs, costs which would quickly become higher than they are now. Just like student loan money and Obumblecare money it would disappear into a black hole of a giant bureaucracy populated by idiots devoted to make life more difficult.

          One thing you can say for Bernie, if you want this system to die he would definitely kill it.

        2. They’d be bending the cost curve and negotiating for more reasonable prices.

          1. negotiations go better when you don’t start of by walking into the store and announcing that you will buy everybody everything regardless of cost

          2. “Quit worrying about those pesky economic laws. Congress amends laws all the time.”

      2. But the deficit will go down automatically under Sanders:

        Obama: spend 4.0 trillion, tax 3.5 trillion, deficit = 0.5 trillion (12.5%)
        Sanders: spend 6.0 trillion, tax 5.5 trillion, deficit = 0.5 trillion (8.3%)

    2. Assuming a multiplier effect of 150X, you need only confiscate a single billion from the top ten billionaires. It’s so simple.

  13. This is why we have to get rid of the middle class, they’re nothing but trouble.

    1. “Workin’ on it.”

      /my town

    2. Historically they *have* been huge stumbling blocks for the aspiring dictator.

      Not enough assets to be able to ‘buy-in’ to the new regime like the rich, but too many assets to be easily swayed by cries of ‘free-shit’ and ‘eat the rich’.

      Plus there’s that education – far too many potential troublemakers come up from the middle class. Last thing Sanders needs is some college kid screaming about how there are *not enough* people in the gulag or how Sanders and his cronies live like kings (first among equals comrade!) while others are scrambling for their deodorant ration.

  14. Let me get this straight: I need to give up almost 10% of my income so I can get my doctor visits (which happen at most once a year) for free? What a deal!

    1. Yeah, my thought too. Hell, my doctor actually went out of his way this year to tell me not to get a checkup next year.

  15. I can just see the poor progtards now:

    Election day: Yeah, we won, you lost! Go sit in the back of the bus! Equality for all, free everything!

    2 years in: Fucking Republicans! Look at my payroll deductions, they were only supposed to take more from other people who don’t want to pay their fair share, not me! Waaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!

    1. No. Republicans will still hold at least the House and possibly the senate, so it will be ‘Bernie WOULD HAVE given us a paradise if not for Republican obstruction.’

      1. This. It’ll be the same horseshit they’re saying now about Obama.

        1. Even though he did control Congress for two years.

      2. Or, you know, look at CA – even if the R’s lose the House and Senate, as long a single one remains in office it will be ‘Republican obstructionism’. Even if they’re all booted out it’ll still be ‘KOCH!’.

        1. All Rightist-deviasionist-wreckers deserve nothing but extinction!

    2. The flaw in your scenario is that it presumes those idiots will have jobs after the $15/hr minimum wage and drastically increased employment taxes take effect.

      1. I graduated from college and my first job didn’t pay $15.00 an hour. Now I make quite a bit more than $15 an hour.

        According to Democrats, it would have been better if I never got that $13.00 an hour job because my employer was cruelly exploiting me.

        1. Well, the Democrats have a point. You can do better with government benefits. Why should anyone work for less than 15 when they can get the equivalent for sitting on their ass all day fighting with their stupid inbred friends on Facebook?

        2. False consciousness. You had no idea how oppressed you were.

        3. Same. And it’s even worse when they limit the $15 to fast-food work: why would I go for a job that requires my particular skills when I’m making more money working at McD’s or Starbucks? There might be a point where I switch careers for the opportunity of advancement, but I know I would have been less attentive to job offers and less willing to start at a low salary if I already had an easy job at $15.

          1. And take it one step further. If your overqualified ass is taking up a spot behind the barista counter or the nugget fryer, some guy with zero education or skills is on the unemployment line.

            1. Right. In these parts, I figure that is implicitly understood.

    3. This would be the silver lining to a Bernie victory.

    4. Shades if the woman who got her med insurance bill and realized it was HER who was going to have to pay for all the free shit she supported in O-care. The HORROR!

  16. Remember how we all scoffed when President Mondale ran on a platform of increasing taxes?

  17. The way Millennials see it*, older generations benefited from wealth transfer programs such as SS, Medicare, and the like, so why not vote for the guy who promises a wealth transfer back to Millennials?

    *SLD about generational collectivism

    1. Not fair! Those old fucks stole their money from ME! Not those damn hipster kids. They haven’t even worked long enough to make any money to steal yet.

  18. On the heels of a surprise victory in last night’s Michigan primary

    Which according to quality pundits everywhere, means nothing, because Hillary’s delegate lead increased after the Michigan primary.

  19. In total, Sanders would raise taxes by about $15.3 trillion over the course a decade, according to an analysis from the Tax Policy Center, via more than two dozen different tax hikes

    If Sanders was going to do this to pay off the national debt, I’d vote for him tomorrow. There, I said it.

    1. I wouldn’t.

      The national debt is caused by expenditures being larger than income. Paying off the debt completely right now would do almost nothing for us as we’d just rack up more.

      Probably rack it up even faster this time around.

      1. Paying off the debt completely right now would do almost nothing for us as we’d just rack up more.

        I didn’t tell you what Phase Two was.

    2. As much as I prefer spending cuts, I would very likely vote for anyone who balanced the budget on tax hikes alone – not because I agree, but because I think it would be a good wakeup call to a lot of people on the true cost of government.

  20. On the campaign trail, Bernie Sanders often talks about starting a political revolution.

    Yeah, a bolshevik revolution. Old commie douche…

  21. At least he admits the money will have to come from somewhere, unlike the jabbering idjits who want to lower taxes and increase spending.

    1. At least in the latter case, there is an argument for increased tax revenue possibly arising from a tax cut, depending on where and how those cuts are made.

  22. Now that she’s got the nomination all but sewn up, look for Hillary to start moving to the center in the next debate away from the crazy national socialism of Bernie and to pitch herself as the moderate counterweight to the extremism of Trump.

    1. I’d rather not look for her at all.

    2. I believe it’s already happening. According to the rumblings I’m getting from the media, her campaign is beginning to retool for the Trump fight, and start treating Bernie as a mere distraction.

    3. Yeah. On a 10-point scale she’ll move from 2 to 3.

  23. what if everyone just pays for their own shit?

    Pay for my own Doomsday Machine? You’re crazy.

  24. Why has no one demanded that all the people volunteering for the Sanders and Hillary campaign be paid a living wage?

    1. I’d rather they did not eat actually

    2. Ummm…because zombies don’t need a living wage?

  25. That’s worth repeating: With Sanders’ plans in place, middle-class earners would face a nearly 9 percent loss in after-tax income.

    But he’s going to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr! We come out ahead.

  26. Even middle class earners would be hit with a sizable tax increase under Sanders’ plans.

    If we get
    – Single payer health insurance coverage
    – A pension paying living wage
    – A minimum living wage
    – College tuition paid for

    I really don’t mind paying. I know you so-called generous people that don’t give a shit about anyone but yourselves won’t like it.

    We collectively paid $11 billion dollars A MONTH for years for these wars. I’d rather the money go to these programs than to a few government contractors and the military complex and big oil.

    Me, personally, I believe I have enough for retirement and won’t need social security. I have enough to send both girls to Ivy League if by some miracle they get in. And I make a lot more than a living wage. Gee, I should be a libertarian and say fuck everyone. Why do I vote against my own best interests?

    1. Why do I vote against my own best interests?

      I would say a penchant to want to spend other people’s money for them.

      1. Yea Alice is being really caring here….”I will only pay more if you are forced to pay more!”. Generous with other people’s money…how compassionate.

    2. I really don’t mind paying.

      Where’s that 1040, Alice?

      1. The last one was written on papyrus and will turn to dust if transferred across then interboobz.

      2. give me an annonymous email kbolino

        1. dnejlim7

          at

          hmamail

          dot

          com

    3. You don’t mind paying because you are a moron who thinks if taxes were jacked up to Bernie levels that people would actually pay them. Jack taxes up that high and what you will see is tax revenue dropping like a stone. The middle class would quickly cease being middle class and the rich would simply move their money or their asses out of the country.

      The quality of all of the things you listed would also drop precipitously.

      We already had a 90% tax on the rich. Guess how much tax revenues were at the time?

      1. You don’t mind paying

        I don’t believe this for one second. I want to see a 1040 showing some substantial income made and taxes paid.

        I have little doubt Alice “doesn’t mind” paying $1000 more in taxes to reap $10,000 in benefits but who the fuck does “mind” getting $9,000 basically for free?

        1. I’ll take the grand in cash over $10,000 in ‘benefits’ any day.

          1. Yes, but that’s because you’re not a fool/thief.

            Alice, on the other hand…

        2. I should have also included in my comment that what Alice means by ‘I don’t mind paying…’ is that Alice doesnt mind YOU paying. Alice has no intention of paying anything.

          Remember the fucking idiots who, upon seeing their insurance rates skyrocket, exclaimed that yeah, they wanted everyone to have insurance they just didn’t know THEY would be the ones paying for it.

          Morons.

      2. I would expect to see a lot of early retirements and migrations to southern climates…

    4. I have enough to send both girls to Ivy League if by some miracle they get in. And I make a lot more than a living wage. Gee, I should be a libertarian and say fuck everyone. Why do I vote against my own best interests?

      That’s not the question. The question is, why are you voting against my best interests?

      1. Perhaps a better question is:

        Why do you want to vote against your children’s best interests?

        And you will be, unless you are confident that they will be on your shiny new welfare programs for life.

        1. Maybe Alice has children for the same reasons the rest of us do: to do yardwork, bale hay and then take care of us when we’re old and suffering dementia. Who cares what our children “want”?

          Amirite guys?

      2. Yep because the reason for not supporting a min wage or free college or single payer is due to fuck everyone!!

    5. Hey… you’re not amsoc!

      Oh well, still called it 30 minutes ahead.

    6. minimum living wage

      WTF does that even mean? “Living” according to whose standards? And Bern’s not paying for it; YOU are, in the form of more-expensive everything.

      1. I believe “living” means in a hip apartment in downtown San Francisco, no roommates, surrounded by the latest electronic gadgets and working from 9:30am to 4:30pm, 3 months vacation a year and unlimited sick leave.

    7. We collectively paid $11 billion dollars A MONTH for years for these wars. I’d rather the money go to these programs than to a few government contractors and the military complex and big oil.

      Holy fuck, dude.

      Medicaid alone spends four times that amount.

    8. I know you so-called generous people that don’t give a shit about anyone but yourselves won’t like it.

      Being generous with other people’s money does not make one generous. It makes one a thief.

      1. THIS. So many in the feelz crowd want to be generous with other people’s money. Bernie Madoff was generous with other people’s money, too…

    9. How much do you make? Easy for you to say considering how well off you are. Curious do you minimize your taxes on your returns?

      Why aren’t you cutting a check to the government? What is a pension paying living wage?

      That 11 billion a month wouldn’t come close to covering single payer

    10. “…Gee, I should be a libertarian and say fuck everyone….”

      Gee, instead you’re a pathetic excuse for a human being and willing to use a gun to fuck everyone.
      I hope you die from a long, painful disease.

    11. Fuck off troll.

  27. “you so-called generous people that don’t give a shit about anyone but yourselves won’t like it.”

    Why are you talking about sending your girls to an Ivy League college? No one should get such unequal opportunity for education. Shouldn’t you be donating your money to local State Univ. for scholarships? I’m real tired of privileged and well-off lefties telling the rest of us how and on whom to spend our money while continuing to enjoy a lifestyle most Americans can only dream about.

    1. Alice is clearly being selfish by giving them a leg up.

  28. If we get
    – Single payer health insurance coverage
    – A pension paying living wage
    – A minimum living wage
    – College tuition paid for

    I really don’t mind paying

    I see nothing about flying ponies on that list, so I ain’t paying.

    1. I really don’t mind paying

      Well, duh. Because you’re going to be one of the ones on welfare for life.

      1. Even if that were not true, it’s easy for someone to support mandating an activity when he voluntarily does that activity anyway: “I like to give to charities; therefore, everyone must give to charities.” “I eat only vegetables; therefore everyone must eat only vegetables.” There’s simply no hardship or curtailment of liberty imposed on that person since he already engages in the activity anyway.

  29. How much more screwed you are depends on the type and source of your taxable income. His plan has an additional 6.2% payroll tax on the employer portion on the tax base for the Medicare tax plus 0.2% additional payroll tax on both the employer portion and on the employee portion on the tax base for the Social Security tax. Self-employed people pay both parts themselves. So if you are self-employed, not even considering the impact of the other tax changes he wants to make, you are going to be paying more than 1/5th of your income before any federal, state or local income tax.

    It get worse. His plan also wants to get rid of the stepped up basis provision in the tax code. So, if you inherited your parents’ house upon their death, it would trigger capital gains taxes even if you didn’t want to sell it. This really hurts the lower and middle income classes more. The rich have the money and other sources of funds to pay for that capital gain. For most lower and middle class they would not have funds available to pay that tax so would most likely have to sell the home or take money out of their tax deferred plan (which would just trigger more taxes)

    1. Also his 6.2% payroll tax for singlepayer is laughable. Probably closer to 15%

      1. Yeah, I’d love to see a tax reform that got rid of the hidden employer-side payroll taxes, and added them to the employee side. I’d even sign on to a provision that required employers to give their employees an offsetting raise when the switch happens.

        1. I’d like to see the effect of doing away with withholdings… don’t change anything else, just make people write the check themselves, and see what happens.

  30. Interesting that no matter what the disease, the cure is always to take more of someone else’s money.

  31. Alice what did you think of bern projecting 324B a year on drugs? When in 2014 305B was spent.

    1. 324B a year savings that is

      1. it makes more sense when you see him as a crazy drunk yelling loudly at what appears to be a brick wall.

  32. Alice did you think the governor (a liberal) of vermont was being selfish when he didn’t follow thru with singlepayer?

  33. I feel like it should be a bigger deal that Sanders talked nonstop about only taxing the rich and just kind of nonchalantly threw that enormous payroll tax hike in once his supporters were on board.

    If I was looking for a politician to eat the rich, and settled on Bernie, I’d be feeling pretty fucking betrayed right now. But I doubt even a third of his supporters realize that’s part of his tax plan.

    1. that enormous payroll tax hike

      But that part is mostly on the “employer side” which as we all know won’t affect anyone but “the rich” because businesses are never owned by people of modest means and employers conveniently always have more “profit” to pay you with.

      1. It won’t get passed on to the employee or make employees more costly to hire!

      2. and obviously no employer ever budgeted salaries with a reduction based on the multiplier for payroll taxes.

        1. But then they’re just being greedy!

    2. I tell my roommate that if we got rid of the payroll tax, he could ask for a raise 1% less than his employer was paying and get it.

  34. For the democrat socialist, the government is never big enough and there are never enough taxes and regulations.

    If a democrat socialist wins the white house, expect a Dept of Transgender headed by Caitlyn Jenner

    1. Caitlyn Jenner is a Republican?

  35. On the heels of a surprise victory in last night’s Michigan primary…

    Why was this a “surprise”? Hasn’t Michigan (and Detroit, specifically) been a land overflowing with “free sh!t” for *years*?

  36. What Sanders inspires in me, as one who has to reassess my view of America now that I’ve returned to start a family, is a sense that our culture can actually change. Money is great, and being rich must be wonderful, but at what cost? A vote for Sanders is a push toward the “Do Unto Others” perspective that has long been lacking from the overarching culture of this country. Yes, his plans ask for higher taxes, and yes, his plans call for us to all “chip in” to the greater good. But isn’t that what community is all about?

    I know it sounds fanciful. I know it sounds illogical when beliefs are matched against numbers. But I don’t like that the numbers are keeping us contained. We’re afraid to pay more taxes at the benefit of helping our neighbors. There’s a greed in that. There’s a lack of community in this country that I found upsetting and that I hope will come to fruition when Sanders takes office.

    It’s not “free” stuff. It’s paid for, but us, by everyone. It’s yours and it’s mine, when you need it.

    Or we can stay with the Darwinian model of capitalism that keeps the poor people poor, the middle class struggling, and the rich people rich. Survival of the wealthiest. It’s been that way since 1776, so why change anything now?

    1. I give away a ridiculous amount of money, and I absolutely *detest* people who call me “greedy” because I reserve the right to *choose* who I give the money that I *earned* to. Who determines what the “greater good” is? Why should I cede my *choice* of who I give my money to to some government elected by looters? You have NO RIGHT to any of the wealth that I have earned, nor to determine for me what the “greater good” is.

    2. Americans (followed closely by Canadians) are the most generous peoples in the world when it comes to voluntary giving, and we rank quite highly on volunteerism as well.

      The Euros you seek to emulate are actually rather stingy when it comes to freely giving of their own accord.

    3. A vote for Sanders is a push toward the “Do Unto Others” perspective that has long been lacking from the overarching culture of this country.

      So, fryerc, I’ve decided that you have too much money, while others have too little. So give it to me. Or I’ll have my goons beat the shit out of you. And if you continue to refuse I’ll throw you in a cage for years. Isn’t ‘do unto others’ grand? Don’t like this behaviour? Well that’s the behaviour you support.

      We’re afraid to pay more taxes at the benefit of helping our neighbors. There’s a greed in that.

      Tell me, fryerc, is not greed for bureaucrats to demand massive salaries and huge pension programs? Why can’t all bureaucrats work for an extremely low wage? Wouldn’t that more strongly encourage a sense of community than ripping money from the hands of others?

      But I don’t like that the numbers are keeping us contained.

      Moronic, vapid platitude that means nothing. Next.

    4. It’s not “free” stuff. It’s paid for, but us, by everyone. It’s yours and it’s mine, when you need it.

      Actually, it’s not mine, because you’re demanding I pay into it without my permission. It’s not ‘mine’ because you refuse to allow me any say in how my money is actually spent. Instead, some wonderful (read: corrupt) people in Washington get to decide. It’s not yours or mine you fool, it’s theirs. But this is obviously another poorly thought out platitude rather than a coherent argument.

      Or we can stay with the Darwinian model of capitalism that keeps the poor people poor, the middle class struggling, and the rich people rich. Survival of the wealthiest. It’s been that way since 1776, so why change anything now?

      You are a complete idiot with absolutely no knowledge of American history if you think any of this is remotely true. I mean, goddamn man, anti-trust laws alone make this wrong.

    5. So you are broke and want free shit, not my problem if you are broke. Get a fucking job or an education, if you can’t die in a gutter, leech.

      That’s hyperbole, but you seem to be smarter than your post.

      Sanders’ goal like any other socialist is to bring the mean down to the lowest common denominator, if you think people will buy that shit you are beyond being an idiot.

    6. So your solution to a lack of a community is to have the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT force it on people? Not much in for freedom huh?

      Benefit our neighbors huh? Me thinks it will be the opposite…it will make them dependent and no longer self sufficient. The middle class isn’t really struggling.

    7. You are really compassionate….having someone else do your dirty work for the greater good. Why did you return to america to start a family if it is so terrible?

    8. Is it not greed to expect your neighbors to provide you free stuff?

    9. Sander’s safety net is really just getting people dependent on the folks in washington. He thinks he can manage your life better than you can.

      How would sanders plan make poor people not poor?

    10. Yes, let’s rush to the ‘You pretend to pay me and I’ll pretend to work.’ ethos. That worked out so well for the USSR. Who is going to work harder for no actual benefit?

  37. This is the kind of shit that drives me crazy when I think about college students’ enthusiasm for this fucking guy. They hardly pay any taxes at all, save for maybe some paltry FICA contributions on their work-study library gigs, yet they have the balls to tell real taxpayers to shut up and take their medicine because Bernie is going to be so great for America.

    They have no idea about anything.

  38. The analysis is off by about 5 trillion. On Bernie’s own website he breaks down how he wants to increase federal spending by 2 trillion dollars per year (a 50% hike), and raise taxes to match. That’s 20 trillion over a decade, not 15.

  39. RE: Bernie Sanders’ Political Revolution Is a $15 Trillion Tax Hike

    Well, duh!
    How else is a devoted going to destroy the economy of a country if he doesn’t tax it out of existence?

  40. Bernie Sanders is a hoofwanking bunglecunt.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.