2016 Elections

[Vrede too]

It will be interesting to see how durable Bernie's support is when people realize that even the poor will see their taxes go up by 34%.

Dylan Matthews' article including that chart is more nuanced, detailed and self-admittedly up for debate than just the chart. Is that why you didn't link it?

Anyhow, I'm not saying that I think it will be a Trump-Bernie election, just that no one would have thought it even remotely possible 1 or 2 years ago.

I'll take the tax hike in exchange for "free" non-profit health care.

No questions asked.

Good point. According to the unlinked graph Wneglia posted, someone making $75.3K (nearest my income) will pay $6626.40 more in taxes. This is in the range of health insurance and well below it if more than 1 individual is covered. Plus, if healthcare is employer covered, the boss will be relieved of the burden and inefficiency of coverage and will be able to pay the worker more. Then, the article is not just about healthcare, but rather all of Bernie's programs that will benefit the middle class, not to mention all the advantage of the nation having a stronger middle class. So, that worker comes out way ahead. The author discusses and/or implied this in the article, that's why I linked it.

So, what "will be interesting" is whether people understand the full picture or whether they are misled by fear mongering. Also, the chart doesn't say "that even the poor will see their taxes go up by 34%". It says 8.8%. Wneglia misread it by nearly a factor of 4 or someone else did, intentionally or not, and he passed it on.

[Wneglia]

It will be interesting to see how durable Bernie's support is when people realize that even the poor will see their taxes go up by 34%.

Dylan Matthews' article including that chart is more nuanced, detailed and self-admittedly up for debate than just the chart. Is that why you didn't link it?

Anyhow, I'm not saying that I think it will be a Trump-Bernie election, just that no one would have thought it even remotely possible 1 or 2 years ago.

I'll take the tax hike in exchange for "free" non-profit health care.

No questions asked.

Good point. According to the unlinked graph Wneglia posted, someone making $75.3K (nearest my income) will pay $6626.40 more in taxes. This is in the range of health insurance and well below it if more than 1 individual is covered. Plus, if healthcare is employer covered, the boss will be relieved of the burden and inefficiency of coverage and will be able to pay the worker more. Then, the article is not just about healthcare, but rather all of Bernie's programs that will benefit the middle class, not to mention all the advantage of the nation having a stronger middle class. So, that worker comes out way ahead. The author discusses and/or implied this in the article, that's why I linked it.

So, what "will be interesting" is whether people understand the full picture or whether they are misled by fear mongering. Also, the chart doesn't say "that even the poor will see their taxes go up by 34%". It says 8.8%. Wneglia misread it by nearly a factor of 4 or someone else did, intentionally or not, and he passed it on.

34.1% divided by 25.3% = 1.3478. A 35% increase. Math much?

[billy.pilgrim]

it will take at least that to repair the damage done by tax cuts for the rich while allowing infrastructure to deteriorate and engaging in unnecessary wars

the last time the repugs destroyed the economy with their pie in the sky gifts to the rich, it took FDR and a 98% tax rate to get the country going again.

the greatest gains ever made by this country occurred when the top rates were between 98% and 78%.

Bernie may be another FDR

[Vrede too]

Opps, sorry, though one could just as accurately say, "The federal tax only rate will increase for the poor by 8.8%," which doesn't sound so scary, especially when all the other moderators I cited and that are mentioned in your unlinked article are included in the discussion. For example:

... Now, marginal rates aren't everything. Most people wouldn't see an actual tax increase of 8.8 percent, even if their marginal rate goes up that much. Effective tax rates — the amount you're actually paying as a percentage of income — also depend on deductions and credits....

Whether that increase is worth it is a totally different question. Single-payer health care would make life easier for a lot of desperately sick people — and as the Sanders campaign notes, it's quite possible that the employee and employer "income-based premiums" in his plan will be less than premiums people are already paying.

The Social Security tax increases, likewise, finance more generous benefits for seniors at a time when defined benefit pensions are becoming less and less common....

Note that your own article chose the " 8.8 percent" number I used rather than your "34%-35%". Your description made it sound as bad as you possibly could without technically being dishonest.

[Wneglia]

it will take at least that to repair the damage done by tax cuts for the rich while allowing infrastructure to deteriorate and engaging in unnecessary wars

the last time the repugs destroyed the economy with their pie in the sky gifts to the rich, it took FDR and a 98% tax rate to get the country going again.

the greatest gains ever made by this country occurred when the top rates were between 98% and 78%.

Bernie may be another FDR

Speaking of FDR, Netflix has the PBS miniseries "The Roosevelt-An Intimate History" which is absolutely fascinating.

[Wneglia]

Opps, sorry, though one could just as accurately say, "The federal tax only rate will increase for the poor by 8.8%," which doesn't sound so scary, especially when all the other moderators I cited and that are mentioned in your unlinked article are included in the discussion. For example:

... Now, marginal rates aren't everything. Most people wouldn't see an actual tax increase of 8.8 percent, even if their marginal rate goes up that much. Effective tax rates — the amount you're actually paying as a percentage of income — also depend on deductions and credits....

Whether that increase is worth it is a totally different question. Single-payer health care would make life easier for a lot of desperately sick people — and as the Sanders campaign notes, it's quite possible that the employee and employer "income-based premiums" in his plan will be less than premiums people are already paying.

The Social Security tax increases, likewise, finance more generous benefits for seniors at a time when defined benefit pensions are becoming less and less common....

Your description made it sound as bad as you possibly could without technically being dishonest.

Politics, baby.

Ever read "How to Lie with Statistics"? It actually should be called "How to exaggerate with Statistics", and is a tool used in Washington daily to spin things in any direction.

[billy.pilgrim]

it will take at least that to repair the damage done by tax cuts for the rich while allowing infrastructure to deteriorate and engaging in unnecessary wars

the last time the repugs destroyed the economy with their pie in the sky gifts to the rich, it took FDR and a 98% tax rate to get the country going again.

the greatest gains ever made by this country occurred when the top rates were between 98% and 78%.

Bernie may be another FDR

Speaking of FDR, Netflix has the PBS miniseries "The Roosevelt-An Intimate History" which is absolutely fascinating.

thanks, Netflix it is. I watched most of it on pbs, but missed a couple of hours.

[O Really]

Ever read "How to Lie with Statistics"? It actually should be called "How to exaggerate with Statistics", and is a tool used in Washington daily to spin things in any direction.

"Statistics don't lie. Statisticians do."

[billy.pilgrim]

Opps, sorry, though one could just as accurately say, "The federal tax only rate will increase for the poor by 8.8%," which doesn't sound so scary, especially when all the other moderators I cited and that are mentioned in your unlinked article are included in the discussion. For example:

... Now, marginal rates aren't everything. Most people wouldn't see an actual tax increase of 8.8 percent, even if their marginal rate goes up that much. Effective tax rates — the amount you're actually paying as a percentage of income — also depend on deductions and credits....

Whether that increase is worth it is a totally different question. Single-payer health care would make life easier for a lot of desperately sick people — and as the Sanders campaign notes, it's quite possible that the employee and employer "income-based premiums" in his plan will be less than premiums people are already paying.

The Social Security tax increases, likewise, finance more generous benefits for seniors at a time when defined benefit pensions are becoming less and less common....

Your description made it sound as bad as you possibly could without technically being dishonest.

Politics, baby.

Ever read "How to Lie with Statistics"? It actually should be called "How to exaggerate with Statistics", and is a tool used in Washington daily to spin things in any direction.

sometimes more than just spin

the entire 2012 repug economic platform was based on an outright lie by renowned economists, Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff. even after it was thoroughly debunked, the repugs continued to cite it as creditable

thanks to one actual news outlet, the public was informed of the lie

thanks Stephen

http://crooksandliars.com/heather/colbe ... -who-relie


it seems the liars Reinhart and Rogoff made an Excel coding error that mysteriously excluded Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, and Denmark from their calculations in order to achieve what they wanted the study to show


this was way more than spin
and the repug base fell for it like mexio paying for trump's fence

[O Really]

Plus, if healthcare is employer covered, the boss will be relieved of the burden and inefficiency of coverage and will be able to pay the worker more.

Because we all know employers always use cost savings for additional employee pay.

While I personally favor universal single-payer coverage, the employer-based component of coverage isn't awful. Employer sponsors and plan, spends less on it than individuals would, provides a non-taxed benefit for employees that has historically been seen as a favorable attraction to employment, and gets a tax deduction for the expense. The problem is that as employer- based coverage became dominant, the other available alternatives became less reasonably attainable. If you were unemployed, self-employed, or poor health, you were screwed.

Without getting all the droolers ranting over "socialism" for a single-payer plan, the problem could have been relieved, if not totally solved, simpler than Obamacare. If they required that all companies providing health insurance calculate their risk on the basis of all people covered nationally, charge the same rate for everyone, and had to insure anybody who gave them money. That would mean that your coverage costs the same whether you were employed or not, well or sick, old or young. Your employer could contribute as a benefit plan or not. Subsidies could be established for low-income people. But bottom line, everybody gets insured, insurance companies still make a profit, and the rubes don't stress out over having to learn to speak Canadian.

But nooooo! Insurance industry owns too many members of Congress.

[billy.pilgrim]

Plus, if healthcare is employer covered, the boss will be relieved of the burden and inefficiency of coverage and will be able to pay the worker more.

Because we all know employers always use cost savings for additional employee pay.

While I personally favor universal single-payer coverage, the employer-based component of coverage isn't awful. Employer sponsors and plan, spends less on it than individuals would, provides a non-taxed benefit for employees that has historically been seen as a favorable attraction to employment, and gets a tax deduction for the expense. The problem is that as employer- based coverage became dominant, the other available alternatives became less reasonably attainable. If you were unemployed, self-employed, or poor health, you were screwed.

Without getting all the droolers ranting over "socialism" for a single-payer plan, the problem could have been relieved, if not totally solved, simpler than Obamacare. If they required that all companies providing health insurance calculate their risk on the basis of all people covered nationally, charge the same rate for everyone, and had to insure anybody who gave them money. That would mean that your coverage costs the same whether you were employed or not, well or sick, old or young. Your employer could contribute as a benefit plan or not. Subsidies could be established for low-income people. But bottom line, everybody gets insured, insurance companies still make a profit, and the rubes don't stress out over having to learn to speak Canadian.

But nooooo! Insurance industry owns too many members of Congress.

I'm reminded of the buggy whip situation we had back in the day

I fall on the side that says, let the buggy whip makers and the insurance company big shots find a new job - their time has passed

[Vrede too]

... According to the unlinked graph Wneglia posted, someone making $75.3K (nearest my income) will pay $6626.40 more in taxes. This is in the range of health insurance and well below it if more than 1 individual is covered. Plus, if healthcare is employer covered, the boss will be relieved of the burden and inefficiency of coverage and will be able to pay the worker more....

Because we all know employers always use cost savings for additional employee pay. ...

... will be able to ...

Not necessarily "will", but it's certainly possible. At the $75.3K pay rate there is competition for workers and newly healthcare coverage-free employers may find it advantageous to increase pay vs. ones that choose to horde the entire windfall. Even if they don't, the increased profit should be counted against Wneglia's implication that the tax increase to pay for single payer, etc. is entirely a negative.

[Vrede too]

Opps, sorry, though one could just as accurately say, "The federal tax only rate will increase for the poor by 8.8%," which doesn't sound so scary, especially when all the other moderators I cited and that are mentioned in your unlinked article are included in the discussion. For example:

... Now, marginal rates aren't everything. Most people wouldn't see an actual tax increase of 8.8 percent, even if their marginal rate goes up that much. Effective tax rates — the amount you're actually paying as a percentage of income — also depend on deductions and credits....

Whether that increase is worth it is a totally different question. Single-payer health care would make life easier for a lot of desperately sick people — and as the Sanders campaign notes, it's quite possible that the employee and employer "income-based premiums" in his plan will be less than premiums people are already paying.

The Social Security tax increases, likewise, finance more generous benefits for seniors at a time when defined benefit pensions are becoming less and less common....

Note that your own article chose the " 8.8 percent" number I used rather than your "34%-35%". Your description made it sound as bad as you possibly could without technically being dishonest.

Politics, baby.

Ever read "How to Lie with Statistics"? It actually should be called "How to exaggerate with Statistics", and is a tool used in Washington daily to spin things in any direction.

I fact check, especially when all I have to do is go to your own source to do so.

What would you say about an oncologist that pushed a risky, painful, expensive, profitable for the oncologist and quality of life diminishing treatment saying that it increased survival by 34%-35% but intentionally neglecting to mention that he was talking about increasing the survival rate from 2.53% to 3.41%?

[Wneglia]

Where is the money going to come from to pay for all of Bernie's give-aways and also pay for this???

[Vrede too]

Any POTUS, including the supposed wall building, tax cutting, militaristic corporate suck-ups, will be dealing with that.

Whatever theoretical POTUS Bernie wants to do, it will be limited by fiscal realities and DC politics. I'm okay with voting for the direction I like while understanding that not all details will be realized.

Bernie Sanders on the Federal Budget & National Debt

Sen. Bernie Sanders (2013): The right way to make a federal budget

[Vrede too]

[rstrong]

One thing is for certain: I won't be voting for Hillary or Bernie.

[Wneglia]

Any POTUS, including the supposed wall building, tax cutting, militaristic corporate suck-ups, will be dealing with that.

Whatever theoretical POTUS Bernie wants to do, it will be limited by fiscal realities and DC politics. I'm okay with voting for the direction I like while understanding that not all details will be realized.

Bernie Sanders on the Federal Budget & National Debt

Sen. Bernie Sanders (2013): The right way to make a federal budget

† Social programs include income security, healthcare, education, housing, and recreation.
‡ National defense includes military spending and veterans' benefits.
§ General government and debt service includes the executive & legislative branches, tax collection, financial management, and interest payments.
# Economic affairs includes transportation, general economic & labor affairs, agriculture, natural resources, energy, and space. (This excludes spending for infrastructure projects such as new highways, which is not accounted for in this graph.[36])
£ Public order and safety includes police, fire, law courts, prisons, and immigration enforcement.

reference

[billy.pilgrim]

Any POTUS, including the supposed wall building, tax cutting, militaristic corporate suck-ups, will be dealing with that.

Whatever theoretical POTUS Bernie wants to do, it will be limited by fiscal realities and DC politics. I'm okay with voting for the direction I like while understanding that not all details will be realized.

Bernie Sanders on the Federal Budget & National Debt

Sen. Bernie Sanders (2013): The right way to make a federal budget

† Social programs include income security, healthcare, education, housing, and recreation.
‡ National defense includes military spending and veterans' benefits.
§ General government and debt service includes the executive & legislative branches, tax collection, financial management, and interest payments.
# Economic affairs includes transportation, general economic & labor affairs, agriculture, natural resources, energy, and space. (This excludes spending for infrastructure projects such as new highways, which is not accounted for in this graph.[36])
£ Public order and safety includes police, fire, law courts, prisons, and immigration enforcement.

reference

wow - James D. Agresti is loved by The Blaze

also is a known right wing nut

[Wneglia]

wow - James D. Agresti is loved by The Blaze
also is a known right wing nut

[37] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: "Table 3.16. Government Current Expenditures by Function." U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised November 4, 2015. http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm…

b) Report: "Fiscal Year 2016 Historical Tables: Budget Of The U.S. Government." White House Office of Management and Budget, February 2, 2015. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/…
Pages 55-64: "Table 3.1—Outlays by Superfunction and Function: 1940–2018."
Line item: "Veterans Benefits and Services."

NOTES:
- Per correspondence from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (March 8, 2011), spending for veterans' benefits is "included within those functions that best reflect the nature of the specific benefits programs managed by the agency." Per the White House Office of Management and Budget (Table 3.2: "Outlays by Function and Subfunction, 1962–2016." Accessed March 8, 2011 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals), "Veterans benefits and services" consist of "Income security for veterans," "Veterans education, training, and rehabilitation," "Hospital and medical care for veterans," "Veterans housing," and "Other veterans benefits and services." These all fall into categories that Just Facts categorizes as "Social programs." Thus, Just Facts subtracted the total "Veterans benefits and services" from the "Social programs" category and added this to the "National defense" category. Per the same correspondence from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, "The administrative expenses of the [Veterans' Affairs] agency … might be included within the General Public Service function." Because of the uncertainty implicit in this statement and the lack of such data from all sources known to Just Facts, we are unable to segregate this spending.
- Given the recent steep rise in the national debt, Just Facts has been asked why the portion of federal spending dedicated to "General government and debt service" has generally fallen since the mid-1990s. Major causes for this include (1) the recent steep rise in overall government spending (2) the recent low interest rates (3) the interest payments shown here do not include the interest due on government-held (a.k.a., "nonmarketable") debt, which as of November 30, 2015, has a 49% higher interest rate than publicly held debt ["Average Interest Rates on U.S. Treasury Securities." U.S. Department of the Treasury. Last updated December 4, 2015. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/]. Facts regarding how and why the federal government keeps its books in this manner are covered in the section of this research entitled "Government Accounting."
- An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.