How much will Sanders raise your taxes? A lot.

A new calculator from and the Tax Policy Center helps you calculate how much the various presidential candidates will raise or lower your taxes.

For me, the biggest surprise was how much more in taxes most people will pay if Bernie Sanders’ proposals are enacted into law. In contrast, under Hillary Clinton’s plan, most people’s taxes won’t change by much.

Sanders supporters will tell you that the increase in taxes is illusory, as you’ll be paying much less for health insurance under a single-payer system, and you’ll be able to send your kids to state college for free. So these freebies offset the increase in taxes. And that may be true. Or it may not. We have no way of really knowing what will or won’t get passed into law, nor how it will play out in practice.

doctor health care obamacare

Doctor via Shutterstock.

We do know how much taxes will increase, and it’s a scary amount. And regardless of any explanations as to how it won’t really be “that” bad, the numbers are jarring.

When I entered into the calculator what I made last year, the increase in taxes under Sanders’ plan was nearly twice what I pay for insurance. And I don’t have any children, so I won’t save anything on college education. So for me at least, I won’t be saving anything, and I’ll be paying a lot more.

I ran the numbers on a few variations. Here they are. You can easily compare how much more you’d pay in taxes with what you currently pay for insurance per year, in order to see if you’d be better off or worse off. I did look up what the average single person and family pay for health insurance per year, for comparison sake.


According to that chart, and the data in the calculator, the average single person with an employer health plan is going to pay more for their insurance under Sander’s plan, even if they only earn $15,000 per year.

And the average single person paying for insurance on the individual market will only save money on Sanders’ plan if they make less than $30,000 per year.

If you’re married with employer-sponsored health insurance, you do a bit better than single people — you do better under Sander’s plan if your family earns $40,000 per year or less. If your family makes more than $40,000, you lose money.

And if you’re married and get your health insurance on the individual market, your break even point under Sanders’ plan is $85,000 per year.

All of this assumes that you’ll pay nothing for health insurance under Sanders’ plan, with the entire cost coming from increased taxes. As for the claim that you’ll make even more money by not having to pay to send your kids to state college, that assume you have kids, that they’re going to college, and that you want to send them to a state college. If you don’t have kids, you don’t benefit, and you end up paying for everyone else’s kids.

So basically, married people do better under Sanders’ plan than single people, who don’t do well at all.

In the end, you have to compare your own health insurance. Mine is a lot more than $3,400 per year.

Here are some of the calculations I ran. The link to the calculator is below.

You earn $200,000 per year, single with no kids
Clinton: Pay $1,310 more.
Sanders: Pay $19,400 more.

Couple earns $200,000 per year, married with no kids
Clinton: Pay $490 more.
Sanders: Pay $19,730 more.

You earn $150,000 per year, single with no kids
Clinton: Pay $550 more.
Sanders: Pay $14,600 more.

Couple earns $150,000, married with no kids
Clinton: Pay $270 more.
Sanders: Pay $16,000 more.

Couple earns $150,000 per year, married with two kids
Clinton: Pay $160 more.
Sanders: Pay $18,500 more.

You earn $100,000 per year, single with no kids
Clinton: Pay $140 more.
Sanders: Pay $9,320 more.

Couple earns $100,000 per year, married with no kids
Clinton: Pay $140 more.
Sanders: Pay $10,930 more.

You earn $75,000 per year, single with no kids
Clinton: Pay $200 more.
Sanders: Pay $7,590 more.

Couple earns $75,000 per year, married with no kids
Clinton: Pay $80 more.
Sanders: Pay $8,100 more.

Couple earns $75,000 per year, married with two kids
Clinton: Pay $40 more.
Sanders: Pay $9,140 more.

You earn $50,000 per year, single with no kids
Clinton: Pay $60 more.
Sanders: Pay $5,430 more.

Couple earns $50,000 per year, married with no kids
Clinton: Pay $70 more.
Sanders: Pay $5,750 more.

Couple earns $50,000 per year, married with two kids
Clinton: Pay $20 more.
Sanders: Pay $5,510 more.

You earn $30,000 per year, single with no kids
Clinton: Pay $30 more.
Sanders: Pay $3,390 more.

Couple earns $30,000 per year, married with no kids
Clinton: Pay $50 more.
Sanders: Pay $3,150 more.

You earn $25,000 per year, single with no kids
Clinton: Pay $30 more.
Sanders: Pay $2,630 more.

You earn $15,000 per year, single with no kids
Clinton: Pay $20 more.
Sanders: Pay $1,630 more.

You can try the calculator for yourself here.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis  — Win a pony! (not really)

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

101 Responses to “How much will Sanders raise your taxes? A lot.”

  1. REDOCPANDA says:

    Nothing is free in this world, if it’s free for you, someone else will have to pay. I don’t want to pay for anyone and don’t need a socialist president to tell me to part way with my money either. Move to Canada if you want free crappy healthcare and education

  2. TellMeImDreaming says:

    Then stay off our roads.

  3. TellMeImDreaming says:

    So Avarosis is really a conservative? When did that happen?

  4. doug dash says:

    What’s your address?

  5. doug dash says:

    Which you are obviously not.

  6. Roy Kokinasok says:

    “Just what are ‘right-wing’ talking points?”

    Anything pointing out how incompetent socialist positions are.

  7. Roy Kokinasok says:

    “It takes a village to raise a child”

    Not for competent people.

  8. Roy Kokinasok says:

    You may not have anymore of my money.

  9. Roy Kokinasok says:

    I won’t pay a dime in federal taxes if hitlary or comrade bernie are elected. I’ll claim 15 dependents and you can come and get me. Bring guns.

  10. Silver_Witch says:

    Or perhaps emjayay many of us have been reading this blog for several years and are deeply offended by Johns blog post. Possible?

  11. Silver_Witch says:

    Well played Comrade, very well played.

  12. Silver_Witch says:

    John I am so sorry to see you promoting this line of HIllary’s. I have such respect for you. Is greed so deep in you and other that paying more is taxes is something you refuse to do to help others?

    I myself will pay approximately $7,900 a year MORE taxes per the calculator. I am happy to pay that especially as the money is going to FREE Education, THE IMPROVEMENT of infrastructure (which by the way will create more jobs), and NOT war.

    Have greed become something to be proud of now in America. You are not the first to promote this calculator nor are you the first to point out we will pay more taxes IF Bernie is able to get his ideas going.

    But then aren’t you the one who says Bernie will never get anything done…so isn’t this mute.

    Shame shame shame on you.

  13. mark_in_toronto says:

    “We have no way of really knowing . . . ”
    Yes you do . . . it’s called research.
    Please don’t act like America is the only country on earth.
    I’m starting to wonder if it’s worth having your link on my homepage.

  14. Naja pallida says:

    Biased, hopelessly inaccurate data aside, the simple fact remains, in order to restore a government functions in the ways it should, taxes for most people are going to have to go up. We’re trillions behind the curve in many key areas, like infrastructure, education, health care… and that’s long before we even try to expand upon public services in the ways that Sanders wants to, which will cost trillions more. As long as we keep cutting taxes and giving billion dollar hand-outs to the richest corporate parasites, nothing can change because we simply can’t afford it.

  15. BC says:

    Just what are ‘right-wing’ talking points?

  16. Voodoo Chile says:

    John used to be one of my favourite writers during the dark days of the Bush era, but it seems like he came out of retirement to do a David Brock hatchet job on opponents of the establishment.

    After his post today calling Bernie Sanders a “Leninist,” I’m done with this site.

  17. koolaidyarn says:

    I agree completely, and strongly believe in the benefits of a well-educated population. I live in the South, so I see first-hand the danger of ignorance and stupidity being pushed as virtues.

    But that’s not the same as saying, “You will individually pay less because your children will get free college,” which is how this seems to be portrayed.

  18. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    Hey, look. A Nitpicker.

    I was speaking of tuition. I know books are expensive. That’s another area we could address (by making it so that professors don’t feel they need to write and sell books to get ahead).

    I see you also have all the Right-Wing Talking Points ™ down. Going to college, the only rules I’ve seen about free speech is don’t be a jerk. Not once have I been told, or seen someone else be told, that they can’t say what is on their mind. The only thing I’ve seen is a prohibition against being a jerk, and an expectation that merely giving your opinion doesn’t entitle you to have it taken seriously. Do you have a problem with being told that your opinion is meaningless without supporting evidence and a firm argument?

  19. doug dash says:

    And if they don’t have any kids, they are helping educate citizens. It takes a village to raise a child.

  20. koolaidyarn says:

    IF they have kids.

  21. heimaey says:

    I think the young people think differently and have different (and less) opportunities than we did so it makes sense that they’d want a more sharing economy as they have watched the economy collapse with no reprecussions. These are the kids affected by the 6+ million people who lost their homes in 2008 due to Wall Street’s reckless behavior while the public bailed them out for free. They’re a far cry from the selfish “me generation” of the baby boomers.

    I will not vote for Hillary either but only because I don’t live in a swing state. If I lived in one I may have had to. But living in NY my third party vote will hardly be noticed.

  22. Dan Gronlie says:

    Huh. Good points. Myself, well, I’m not sure if we’re looking at a true resurgence of liberalism or something that could simply fade away like… I don’t know, a political ‘Woodstock?,’ if Sen. Sanders does not secure the nomination. I hope you’re right, but if you are, it would mean a major upheaval in the corporate-sponsored political system, and a lot of deeply entrenched, well-connected people who won’t go away quietly. Meaning, a very serious generational conflict.

    It may all be necessary to keep the country from becoming a More Perfect Oligarchy, but it wouldn’t be pretty.

    That said, I made a commitment to myself a long time ago (way before Sanders declared) that I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton as President of the United States. Of course, I won’t vote for a Republican, under any circumstances, but I guess I’m right in the thick of it regardless.

    Thanks :-)

  23. heimaey says:

    I like John a lot and respect him – and he’s not alone in this thinking. Many neoliberals are scared of the true liberalism that Bernie is bringing. They haven’t seen it since before McGovern and all they know is how to be less bad than the other guys. But that’s changing and my advice to all those people who don’t see neoliberalism and Clintonian Democrats dying out soon, well in the words of Bob Dylan you better learn to swim or you’ll sink like a stone.

  24. Dan Gronlie says:

    I don’t even know what a ‘bro’ is, although I’ve seen it used as a slur on all sorts of web sites. However, I’d disagree a bit with you about the past tone of the blog. John Aravosis was an early Obama supporter and wasn’t exactly restrained in his criticisms of Hillary Clinton in 2008. But even then, he wasn’t as reckless or severe in the tone of his writing as he was in a couple of recent anti-Sanders articles. Actually, I don’t think he ever was before leaving the blog.

    I now see an article titled ‘Lead Sanders supporter might vote for Trump to bring “Leninist” revolution,’ by John, again. And it is.. mostly about Susan Sarandon. I don’t know why she’s a ‘lead’ supporter, exactly, and she’s always been a bit oddball in her political statements.

    Yeah, he’s really, really changed. I think I’m just going to be done with the site now…

  25. heimaey says:


  26. Dan Gronlie says:

    I’ve visited the site for years and years. Sometimes to pick up tidbits of information from a very politically aware gay person, sometimes to see which fiercely anti-gay politicians were actually gay (John has always had a very good record on his picks), sometimes to learn a bit about what it’s like to live in DC, and sometimes for his insights from having worked on the Hill in conjunction with his legal analysis. Sometimes, just to see what a ‘Greek’ gay blogger-lawyer-former Republican who had worked on the Hill had to say.

    Also, ‘Chris in Paris’ was often very interesting. He shared some valuable perspective on how an American expat not bombarded by the American corporate media looks at American politics. Also, his insights into life in France compared to life in the US were often enlightening.

    I have no idea what a ‘BernieBros’ blog is, and have visited Americablog probably, oh, a couple of thousand times over the past 7-8 years. Directly from a browser link in my ‘News/Politics’ bookmarks folder.

    I had spent some time reading the ‘new guy,’ but was kind of weirded out when I saw his article some time ago about how he voted for Bernie Sanders in his primary/caucus (can’t remember which) ‘on the condition that he lose.’ He tried to apply some logic as an explanation, but I found it very strange. I’ve never heard of anyone voting for a candidate for political office with a ‘you must lose’ clause attached.

    So, I’ve spend less time here since that, but, frankly, the link had become a somewhat instinctive click for me some time ago, so it’s just habit. And habit is what led me to discover John Aravosis was back writing a bit. And then, the content of his articles. I don’t know what has happened to him, but the last two of John’s articles I’ve read are so… not like how he used to write. He’s coming across to me as a right-wing hack, not caring at all about the validity of the information he’s using to make arguments with pre-mandated conclusions bashing a political candidate.

    So… it’s kind of sad, and I hardly ever wrote anything in the Americablog comments section, as I was generally interested in the opinions of Mr. Aravosis or ‘Chris in Paris,’ not what people had to say about their opinions. I’ve only written what I have in the last week because of the strange change in Mr. Aravosis’s, well, everything, at least concerning his writing.

  27. cinorjer says:

    You do realize your entire premise is a crock, right? You claim to be able to predict how much more people will pay in taxes, and when people (rightly) tell you that people also have to factor in overall savings that offset these, you whine that since you can’t tell the future, you are allowed to ignore that.

    You can’t have it both ways. And this article is deliberately misleading. You should be ashamed of yourself.

  28. Jeff Ryan says:

    Don’t know what possessed me, and that’s no excuse. So I do apologize. Unforgivable of me.

  29. Dan Gronlie says:

    It’s full of additional non-direct-income tax implications, such as an estimated amount of wage decrease for employees based on changes in how capital gains would be taxed. And, although the title of the study is ‘An Analysis of Senator Bernie Sanders’s Tax Proposals,’ the ONLY subjects that are addressed with conclusions based on numbers are the direct costs and effect on government revenue. Nothing else, such as the economic effects of how the tax revenue would be spent.

    The evaluation states, for example:

    Page 2, ‘SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION,’ paragraph 4, continued to Page 3:

    “However, the additional spending could generate its own positive economic benefits to the extent that it would increase the nation’s investment in productive physical and human capital.”

    Page 7, ‘MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL,’ paragraph 1, below Table 2:

    “The last time the maximum marginal income tax rate was approximately this high was during the Reagan administration.”

    Page 17, ‘MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL, paragraph 2:

    “A strong economic case exists for a carbon tax(Marron, Toder, and Austin 2015).”

    (added by me – citation to ‘Maron, Donald, Eric Toder, and Lydia Austin. 2015. “Taxing Carbon:What,Why,and How.” Washington, DC:Tax Policy Center. (Yep, that’s the same Tax Policy Center, and the paper is very strongly in favor of Carbon taxation. Who is the only candidate for the Presidency proposing a carbon tax? Sen. Sanders)

    Page 17, Paragraph 3:

    “Greenhouse gas emissions thus create a host of potential economic and environmental threats, including increased property damage from storms, human health risks, reduced agricultural productivity, and ecosystem deterioration.”

    OK – I’ll start with the last two paragraphs I cited. Even though the authors of the analysis are very clear that there are economic threats created by emissions that would be reduced by effective taxation, there is NO consideration in the analysis of the economic benefits of Sen. Sanders’ proposed carbon taxation. No rough speculation, nothing. The Tax Policy Center is very much in favor of carbon taxation, but they apparently can’t come up with even a rough guess concerning the economic benefits of reduced property damage from storms, reduction in human health risk costs, comparatively better agricultural production or reduced ecosystem deterioration. They don’t mind getting speculative about a lot of other things, but apparently, even though they have people studying the subject closely, such potential economic benefits don’t factor into their numbers. They just give lip service to the subject, then go on to discuss how much it would cost industries.

    The first paragraph I cited:

    The study suggests a possibility that there would be an increase in ‘investment in human capital’ (labor). If there is an increase in such investment, the result would be increased wages. No rocket science there. So… where are the potential wage increases from increased investment in human capital addressed in the study? Um.. that’s the last place the possibility is discussed.

    And from page 7, the straight-up propaganda piece:

    Technically, it’s true that Senator Sanders’ proposals for the maximum marginal income tax rate of 54.2% on annual Adjusted Gross Income over ten million dollars is higher than it’s been since August 13, 1981. What is omitted is that it’s actually much, much LOWER than every single year from 1932 to August 13, 1981. Way, way lower. And the so-called ‘Reagan Tax Cuts’ of 1981 (actually more the Jack Kemp and William Roth tax cuts, and they passed a substantially Democratic controlled House and Senate), resulted in a tripling of the national debt in 8 years. Which cost the United States over a trillion dollars in interest alone from 1981-1988.

    But I digress. The interesting question is why an organization called the ‘Tax Policy Center’ would fail to point out that a proposal for increasing the highest levels of marginal income tax rates to levels higher than during the past 35 years nevertheless would result in lower marginal income tax rates than the during the preceding 49 years? During those preceding 49 years of much, much higher top level marginal tax rates, the GDP of the United States grew 4,170%. Since 1981, the GDP of the United States has grown 537%. (in real dollars, according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, it’s 722% compared to 253% )

    Now that would be a real analysis of ‘Tax Policy.’

  30. BC says:

    Why do you assume there will be ‘no cost’ for college?

    The only thing he says he wants to cover is tuition, the cost of attending college even as an adult is WAY more than just the cost of tuition–colleges have so many additional fees, the cost of books (some books are more than $200 for 1 class) and then of course if the teacher requires you to take tests online there is the online fee, and some colleges require you to get a ‘clicker’ for your classes to show attendance.

    Educated people?? Not when free speech is being banned on college campuses, not when kids scream they can’t even handle hearing someone disagree with them and they need trigger warnings and ‘safe places’. That is not an education–that is indoctrination.

  31. Butch1 says:

    I was thinking the HRC was giving a ad here for a moment and I had to check the author. It surprised me. I’m a bit disappointed.

  32. BC says:

    He does say he’s going to make the ‘rich’ pay more so why are you surprised??

  33. doug dash says:

    It’s not a question of our taxes going up. It’s a question of what we get for it.
    If the minimum wage goes to $15 bucks for many less people will need government help. People that are making $15 per hour can afford to pay some taxes especially if their kids get to go to college and their medical coverage is paid

  34. Dan Gronlie says:

    Thank you for kindly pointing out my idiocy. I did not realize that I was ‘spouting gobbledygook,’ and it was very thoughtful for you to point that out to me.

    I don’t suppose I’ve got any ‘training’ for this sort of thing. I was a tax attorney for 7 years, specializing in estate planning. I realize that carefully combing the tax code, IRS regulations and administrative rulings, and the extensive and often very different state revenue approaches to estate taxation, to provide clients with the best advice concerning how to pass on millions to their children, grandchildren, favorite charities, the churches they have attended, etc., is utterly useless experience when evaluating, well, other tax attorneys’ calculations. I mean, it’s not like I did that for a living or anything.

    Obviously, my current 6 years as an IT Director do not provide me with any insight into web design or programming. Certainly not with respect to the type of web site that hosts the program at the center of this discussion.

    Sorry if that’s gobbledygook – I tend to deal in very concrete information, and do not provide my opinion of something unless I can discuss the level of confidence I have in the opinion and what it is based on. That could be perceived as ‘gobbledygook’ by people who make decisions based on whether they like conclusions they are presented with or not.

  35. Webster says:

    And he apparently no longer has that job, and he’s apparently either working for Hillary now, or auditioning for a position in a Hillary administration. That’s the only reason I can see for abandoning his loyal followers who once turned to him for intelligent political insight…

  36. Dan Gronlie says:

    I’m amazed at your assessment of my age! I am indeed a 10 year old prodigy, an attorney and an IT Director for a small-ish manufacturing company in Minnesota.

    However, I’m not sure what you mean by ‘it’s all rigged.’ ‘heimaey,’ who is actually 9 years old and a vice president of a major online tax service, discussed a number of substantial flaws in the Tax Policy Institute’s ‘calculator,’ and provided a bit of information about possible questionable motives of the web site that hosted it. I don’t know if you stop caring when you get older, but my 10-year-old
    brain likes to know where information presented to me as a basis for
    accurate conclusions actually comes from, so I added some some information to the discussion.

    Since I know the authors from the Tax Policy Institute who conducted and published the underlying analyses of Sen. Sanders’ and Sec. Clinton’s tax proposals (the oldest is 14 – she’s considering retirement soon), I know that the ‘flaws’ were actually deliberate omissions, leading to deceptive and, ultimately, worthless conclusions. At least worthless to anyone regarding the output as accurate. if the purpose was, in fact, to be deceptive, then the conclusions are not worthless to the designers.

    I conducted an analysis which resulted in conclusions very similar to heimaey, and I agree with heimaey concerning both the quality of the ‘calculator’ and the possible motivations of the web site that hosts it. I also felt that it would be useful to provide a bit more information about the Tax Policy Institute, a joint project of the Brookings Institution (a very powerful American ‘think tank’) and the Urban Institute (another American ‘think tank’, very well-funded by various Federal government departments, private foundations and major corporations such as JPMorgan Chase & Co., Midland Credit Management, Inc. (a collection agency), H&R Block, PepsiCo, Wells Fargo, the ‘Mortgage Bankers Association,’ the ‘National Association of Realtors,’ State Street Global Advisors (the world’s second largest asset manager – around $2.4 trillion in assets), well… you get the idea – it’s a very well-heeled and well-connected organization).

    My parents taught me never to take candy from strangers. It’s a good principle for a child, but even a better one for you grown-ups…

  37. heimaey says:

    I did – it’s below. They’re double counting. It’s insane how unethical this piece is.

  38. UncleBucky says:


  39. UncleBucky says:

    The data is debatable. Show YOUR data and we can have a decent discussion.

  40. Skye Winspur says:

    ‘There is nothing wrong with anyone incorporating new (or old) ideas and
    nothing wrong with a politician representing where a part of their party
    and constituency is.’

    I agree. Strange, then, that when a politician decides to support Bernie in response to how his constituency voted, we get headlines like “What is even happening?”

    I think the Democratic Party can eventually absorb Sanders’ ideas and fervor, but it’s not going to be an easy “readjustment,” not when big media continually calls Bernie supporters crazy while ignoring misery and mass killings (Chicago is far more violent than Brussels these days) in poor and minority communities.

  41. ComradeRutherford says:

    You don’t know that John used to be a registered Republican?

  42. ComradeRutherford says:

    “under Hillary Clinton’s plan, most people’s taxes won’t change by much”

    Because Hillary won’t change one single thing the Conservatives have done for the last 40 years. The LAST thing Hillary wants is to support the core values of the Democratic Party.

  43. heimaey says:

    I love that you got nasty and called Webster a Bernie Bro and someone calls you corporate Hillary hack and suddenly THEY’RE not constructive. SMDH.

  44. Manda Gambrell says:

    “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

    two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereo!486➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsMedia/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::o!486…….

  45. noGOP says:

    I have been a regular reader of americablog for many years. I have read a couple of John’s recent posts about bernie and trying to decide whether to delete the bookmark to the site.
    His pro-hillary/anti-bernie bias shows through so strongly that any data he cites is automatically highly suspect. in this case the source of his data is also.

    Sadly, John has come to sound very much like a corporate lobbyist.

    this post made it easy to hit the delete button for the americblog bookmark. I’m sure my several daily hits will make no difference. bye all. I won’t see any replies.

  46. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    A conservative hit piece? On Americablog? Wow.

    First, why do you assume that only people with children benefit from college? What about those of us who are going to college as adults, say, to retrain for a second career since our first career is suffering from the past 40 years of Republican and DNC Democrat mismanagment and just pure technological progress? I’d directly benefit from no-cost college.

    Second, even if it was true, I guess you believe that educating someone else’s children is a bad thing? Since when did we go over to the Dark Side here? College is cool. It will cut down on the ignorant Right-Wingers (for the most part), and improve our standing in the world. And you’ll benefit from that by having more educated people to buy from and sell to. What a notion, right?

    Republican notions tell us taking care of others is a waste, and that if it doesn’t benefit us (directly), we shouldn’t pay for it. When did you turn Republican?

  47. seashack says:

    This is disappointing on so many levels, John. In addition to the well documented inaccuracies of the Vox article which others have pointed out, you are using the selfish conservative argument that, if one has no children, one gets no benefit from having a well educated population. We will all be better off when the education level of the population increases. The young people of today, after all, are going to be the ones who are working to pay for our Social Security! In addition they won’t be as prone to falling for future Trumps. This is why we cant have nice things.

  48. Moderator4 says:

    You can disagree with others all you want, but learn to rein in the insults and ad hominem attacks. This is your first warning.

  49. heimaey says:

    The bro monicker is not offensive – remember when Hillary supporters called us Obama boys in 08? Simple tactic to use her revolving door feminism (yes when it suits her, no when it’s her husband).

  50. heimaey says:

    Remember the pic of Obama dressed up as a Muslim that her campaign leaked. Please. She’s a Clinton – they get their hands VERY dirty.

  51. heimaey says:

    I agree – to a certain extent – Hillary’s behavior over the years is to do it only when it suits her and there is lots of empirical evidence that she’ll be fine if she does support it. She’s the most cautious politician out there. So let’s hope she’s convinced.

  52. heimaey says:

    You don’t have to agree with me, you can think I’m making things up, whatever – I don’t care. But why stoop to calling someone an idiot? I just don’t understand why people can’t keep things civil.

  53. sophie says:

    I’m not a “bro,” and I have decided to support Sanders. It is obvious that certain writers/creators of Americablog are simply promoting anti-Sanders propaganda. I have read several posts now from Mr. Aravosis, etc., that manage to smear Sanders using faulty information via slanted statistics or other “facts,” from pro-Clinton corporate organizations. This isn’t anything really new appearing on this particular blog, but it does seem to be intensifying.

  54. karlInSanDiego says:

    The Urban Institute (Pfizer and CIGNA) and the Brookings Institute (Walmart) attack Sanders with boldface misrepresentations. Nice work, John, fucking putz.

  55. Jeff Ryan says:

    Yeah, so it’s all rigged, right? ‘Cause otherwise, these guys would have just done this for free. Power to the people!

    What are you, like, 10?

  56. Jeff Ryan says:

    ‘Cause there really isn’t any reality, it’s all just what you claim it is, like W said.

    If you want to stop spouting gobbledygook, and actually look at how people who have trained to do this go about it, then you’ll be worth taking seriously. ‘Cause right now? You just sound like an idiot.

  57. Jeff Ryan says:

    You’re preaching to The Children’s Crusade. It will sure be a letdown when they realize grownups vote too, and grownups won’t want to have a Revolution! and pay more than half their income in taxes.

    ‘Cause that’d take, man, like really doing some homework, and that really sucks, man!

  58. Jeff Ryan says:

    Yeah, and if we can just be like Denmark, like Bernie says, your income tax rate will only be 55%


  59. Jeff Ryan says:

    No she isn’t. It’s true that some idiotic supporters of hers spread the nonsense, but not her. Hillary and Trump are not good friends, so “there’s that too.”

    Where do you get your facts from,


  60. Moderator3 says:

    You’re wasting your time. Becca knows not to feed trolls.

  61. hiker_sf says:

    Five in a row? What are you talking about?

  62. hiker_sf says:

    Given that the OECD median expenditure on healthcare per capita is $3,661 per year, and the current US per capita expenditure is $9,086 per year, there must be other things factored into Bernie’s alleged tax on Vox.

    My guess it is bias.

  63. sophie says:

    How is it “asking everyone else to do your research for you?” in that question. It’s also obvious who is in control of this blog. And, the freebie is not particularly informative.

  64. Myself says:

    Vox’s calculator has been analyzed and called out for inaccuracies, just read that calculator’s FAQ. They include excise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes and then tack on the tax your employer pays in the result it generates!

  65. Voodoo Chile says:

    Aren’t you the guy who flies to France every year to get health care and then writes blog posts about it?

  66. emjayay says:

    It’s a democracy. Clearly there is a post-Occupy Wall Street, post-Piketty, junior year in Europe movement whose ideas tend to be similar to the guy who’s been saying the same stuff for forty years. The Democratic Party should readjust, as parties or successful companies for that matter do. If Hillary Clinton is smart, she will find a way to as well. There is nothing wrong with anyone incorporating new (or old) ideas and nothing wrong with a politician representing where a part of their party and constituency is.

  67. emjayay says:

    What’s that, five in a row? Real helpful, bros.

  68. emjayay says:

    Oh please.

  69. emjayay says:

    Yeah, there’s another one. Real constructive, Maribel.

  70. emjayay says:

    I’m guessing this got linked to some BernieBros blog.

  71. Webster says:

    Watching Mr. Aravosis promote Hillary on Twitter and here, it’s clear that someone is having warm nostalgic memories of when he used to be a Republican…

  72. heimaey says:

    They are quick to jump to her side because it is pretty clear she’s going to win, but whether she wins or not, the tides have changed and the DNC as we know it is doomed if they don’t address the growing liberalism – the Republicans will be in a similar situation to the Dems soon. Sort of Nero fiddling-esque.

  73. heimaey says:

    Hillary is the one that started the birther movement in 08. Trump latched on to it later but the whispers stemmed from her primary campaign against him. Hillary and Trump are also good friends so there’s that too.

  74. Maribel Hernandez-Green says:

    so you a corporate Hilary hack whats new?

  75. Dan Gronlie says:

    And if I used a hammer as a window-cleaning tool, would I have a valid conclusion that it’s almost impossible to clean windows?

  76. Dan Gronlie says:

    I can make up some very impressive data, but I don’t belong to a ‘think tank,’ so I guess it wouldn’t count then…

    As to UncleBucky, wow – a ‘think tank’ laying out meticulously detailed analyses of various candidates’ ‘tax proposals’ at this stage of of the run-up to a national election is just absurd. The propositions they put out at this point are vague, and lack much context necessary to even speculate on in a broad sense. A ‘calculator’ that you can use to plug in your current wages and somehow magically be shown exactly how much money you’ll make if this or that candidate become President?

    I actually read the two ‘Tax Policy Center’ analyses of Bernie Sanders’ and Hillary Clinton’s tax proposals – the Clinton one is about 40 pages, the Sanders one a few more – and they’re nonsense. Each one says ‘we asked questions of the campaign and received these helpful answers’ but absolutely nowhere is the name of the specific campaign representative they indicate they spoke with. And the methodologies are just silly.

    ‘Data’ is just raw numbers that may or may not be useful to anyone. ‘Information’ is data organized in some vaguely coherent way so as to be potentially useful to someone. And, finally, ‘bullshit’ is information made to stand on its head and appear to be conclusive proof of something that has nothing to do with it.

    Guess which one the ‘tax calculator’ is?

  77. hiker_sf says:

    I’m sure that the whisper campaign that Sanders never participated in the civil rights marches was also not intended as a smear.

  78. hiker_sf says:

    John has the Clintonian ethics. Anyone remember this? I guess I should be glad that the red-baiting has stopped.

    Clinton aides claim Obama photo wasn’t intended as a smear

  79. Dan Gronlie says:

    That’s what I’d thought. I have visited the site from time to time over the years and was really surprised by the ‘Bernie is going after ‘Hillary’s’ superdelegates if he doesn’t win the ‘popular vote” article I saw last week. And then, to see that it was John writing it, with mis-attributions and some just plain made-up stuff, well, that was the shocker for me.
    And this one – wow – to say things like ‘I did the math’ with such an absurd ‘calculator’ when a couple of years ago he would have scoffed at such nonsense – it’s just disappointing :-(

  80. Dan Gronlie says:

    I wondered about that too, but it was only for a very brief time.
    Isn’t it strange, though, that we have so many ‘think tanks’ in our country? Some people, companies, and, in this case, countries, have a lot of money and they pay other people to make crap up, but with such a sophisticated veneer that it seems to have come from serious academic endeavor (whatever that really is…). They’re everywhere in Washington, they have ‘commentators’ who show up on TV talking heads shows in droves, and, somehow, all these people seem to possess some kind of self-respect. Beats me.

  81. Skye Winspur says:

    Interesting to look at these numbers. Even if I were earning $50,000 a year (there’s an unrealistic assumption for you), and the tax penalty were ~ $800 greater than my savings on health insurance, I would accept the tradeoff. Single-payer health care – I know this from experience with the NHS in the UK – is a great amenity to have and the peace of mind it would bring me counts for a lot.

  82. nicho says:

    I expect more from America Blog than this pro-Clinton misleading propaganda. Although I have noticed a definite bias among so-called liberal bloggers beating the drum for Hillary fast and furiously. It could just be that they think she’s inevitable and don’t want to jeopardize their invites to the White House holiday cocktail parties. Those cheese puffs and cosmos come at a price.

  83. heimaey says:

    It does when you look how misleading the numbers are.

  84. heimaey says:

    The data is wrong.

  85. heimaey says:

    It’s unethical to say the least – but is again, owned by Comcast which is a huge Clinton donor and supporter. And Hillary supporters wonder why Sanders supporters question her ties to big business and Wall Street when something as biased as this is published and most people are too lazy to look up the real story because this stuff is complicated.

  86. emjayay says:

    It seems to me that it is extremely hard to calculate the effect of changing from individual and employee group plans to all-tax paid plans, plus the effect of doing something about prescription drug prices for which we pay 2 or 3 or 4 or more times for than all other comparable countries. We could also probably do something about that without the single payer tax-based deal. Plus I believe the Bernie plan claimed more savings on drugs than is spent on drugs. We could also end TV and magazine and internet advertising for prescription drugs like those other countries too, without the single payer at all.

    Right now theoretically most of most people’s health insurance is paid for by their employer, and they don’t individually pay income taxes for it even though it is compensation. If suddenly there were no more employer subsidized health care insurance plans, would all the employers put all the money they are saving into everyone’s paychecks? Except their taxes and your taxes go way up at the same time.

    There are just a whole lot of moving parts here, plus the free college deal, with few details.

    It might be a lot better and far, far, more actually possible to do things one step at a time.

  87. emjayay says:

    John is back for visits. He had gone to NYC or someplace for a big paying job, and I suppose a break.

  88. UncleBucky says:

    It IS a tool he is using. And the comments are based on the results of that tool.

  89. UncleBucky says:

    Brilliant post!!!

    We need data, not opinion. And if indeed the numbers you are getting out of this are what they are, then it’s very enlightening.

    Now, the only thing is if we can get the public option? Medicare E for Everyone?

  90. trinu says:

    The current director of the Tax Policy Center previously worked for the Clinton administration. Although that doesn’t automatically invalidate their analysis, it does raise questions of bias.

  91. Dan Gronlie says:

    It’s much more than that. The ‘Tax Policy Institute,’ which is really almost exclusively the Brookings Institution, where the ‘calculator’ was designed and ‘analyses’ performed on the tax proposals by all major candidates for the Presidency, is heavily financed by the governments of Norway and Qatar. Weird combination. (As of 2007, there’s a ‘Brookings Doha Center’). They’re still in a bit of hot water over the Norway millions, as it’s pretty clear (in the terms of the grants and acceptance of grants) that Norway expects access to the American political system in exchange.

  92. Dan Gronlie says:

    And ‘ECI’ is completely a recent invention of the organization that the ‘calculator’s’ designer works for. No one else uses it. Literally. It’s actually awfully strange that it would use ‘ECI’ as an acronym for a taxation-oriented concept, since ‘ECI’ is already very well established as ‘Effectively Connected Income,’ a totally different subject relating to the taxation of foreign persons or entities generating income in the United States. The whole ‘calculator’ is flawed on so many levels that it is useless as a predictive tool.

  93. Dan Gronlie says:

    And… the kickers: straight from

    Q: Why didn’t you calculate the effects of greater spending on government programs?

    RW: (Roberton Williams, at ‘the Tax Policy Center,’ who designed the calculator) The calculator uses results from the Tax Policy Center’s analysis of the four tax plans to show the effects of each plan. The center’s models do not yet include spending programs, so the analyses cannot show the effects of expanded government spending.

    (added by me – so… not a single aspect of any of this money is spent and how it may benefit Americans is considered…)

    Q: This model doesn’t show savings from universal health care and lower interest rates on education loans. What gives?

    RW: The Tax Policy Center’s model does not include spending programs and thus can only show the effects of tax changes. The model does not indicate the effects of changes in government spending that reduce what households have to pay for health insurance or other consumption.

    (added by me – so… not only does the calculator not even attempt to factor in possible changes, say… to the cost of living, the designer says that the model ‘does not include spending programs and thus can only show the effects of tax changes.’ Which means that the whole thing assumes that every penny of taxes vanishes – which is not, at all, showing the ‘effects’ of tax changes, as the designer claims. He should have said that the model ‘does not include spending programs and thus can only show the possible direct effects of tax changes on income.’)

    Oh, also… The whole thing is completely misleading to begin with. Why? Because it treats employer contributions to employer-offered health insurance plans and employer portions of payroll taxes as direct costs to employees. The calculator bases its evaluation of employee wages on something called Expanded Cash Income. This evaluation treats your employer-paid portions of various payroll taxes (most notably Social Security) and employer-paid portions of insurance premiums as though they are direct costs against employee income. Which would mean that, if a cut was made to the employer’s portion of Social Security payroll tax of 1%, and there was no adjustment to an employee’s portion of that tax, the employee would instantly be presumed to have a raise of exactly what the employer is now not paying. That’s not quite how things work…

    And… Even though the ‘calculator’ does not ‘include spending programs,’ it does apparently purport to factor in the COSTS of all other taxes (not income taxes) in determining what an employee’s wage would be. So:

  94. pliny says:

    There’s a breakdown of the inaccuracies of the Vox calculator here:

  95. heimaey says:

    Basically, the Vox (owned by Comcast a HUGE Hillary donor BTW) article is completely lying about payroll taxes.Vox is double-counting. They’re counting both sides of the ledger. That’s how they get to that 15.3% figure they say you are paying in payroll taxes today. But go get your pay stub. Add up the FICA OASDI and HI lines. They only add up to 7.65% of your pay, not 15.3%. The truth is, it’s not 15.3%. It’s 7.65%. And if you go ahead and look at your pay stub, you’ll see that under FICA, they only take 7.65%. Your employer matches that at 7.65%. But it does NOT come out of your check.

    Now, Sanders is proposing 2 new payroll taxes. One pays for healthcare (Medicare for All). This is at 2.2% out of your check, and matched at 6.2% by your employer. But you don’t pay the 6.2%. Your employer does. Your employer also no longer has to pay for Obamacare nor healthcare of any kind for employees. For many employers this new tax will actually save them money they otherwise would pay to health insurance companies. So, to be clear, at this point, all that is really coming out of your check is 9.85%. And that covers healthcare. So all of the money coming out of your check right now for health insurance, dental insurance, and vision insurance (check your pay stub, it’s probably hundreds per month), you get back. Instead, you pay only a 2.2% new payroll tax. Added together with Medicare for post 65 and Social Security, and you get to 9.85%. Now, there is one more baby payroll tax. 0.2%. It is to be paid by employees and matched by employers. It covers paid family leave and sick time.

    So in the end, all that comes out of your check for payroll taxes, is 10%. That’s it. 10%. And you are covered for healthcare and paid family leave and sick time and Social Security. Not a bad deal at all. Obamacare subsidies don’t even kick in until you’re paying over 10% for a crappy silver plan. So this is a big savings for most people.

    So, here’s the deal. Vox is lying about the 15.3% they say you pay now. It’s really 7.65% you pay now. And under Bernie’s plan, that would go up to 10%. But you would save hundreds and hundreds per month on paying for health insurance premiums and get paid family leave for it. So yes, there is a 2.4% or so hike in payroll taxes for employees. But it’s well worth it.

    What is very, very confusing and dishonest about the Vox article is that they know this, but they shift the 2.2% payroll tax onto the income tax side. That’s why that goes up by 2.2%. Then they add all the other payroll taxes together, whether they’re paid by employees or employers, and put them on the payroll tax side (most of this doesn’t come out of your check).

    But instead of being truthful and simple, Vox basically says this:

    The total you and your employer pay now into Social Security and Medicare (7.65% out of your check, 7.65% out of employer) plus what Bernie will have employers pay instead of paying for health insurance (6.2%), plus family leave from the employer and the employee (0.2% for you, 0.2% for employer), equals 21.9%.

    But, of that 21.9%, only 7.85% is coming out of your paycheck. The other 14.05% is being paid by employers, most of whom save a lot of money by no longer having to buy healthcare or pay for family leave themselves.

    But they add it all up. Then they say that the 2.2% payroll tax that will be the employee’s share of Medicare for All is actually an income tax because Bernie refers to it as a ‘premium’ since it replaces the money you pay for health insurance premiums right now. But the truth is it is not an income tax at all. It is a payroll tax. So instead of explaining it right, they add it to the income tax column. Income tax below $250,000 is not touched in Sanders’ plan.

    So go ahead and trust Vox if you want – but they are biased and they are misleading- and badly so. I mean if these numbers were true people would truly be up in arms – but they’re not. :/

  96. kladinvt says:

    How much did Hillary or her Donor-Owners pay you for this one?

  97. BeccaM says:

    Y’know, you could click on over to the Vox site and read for yourself the answers to all of your questions, instead of asking everyone else to do your research for you. Here’s a freebie for you:

    To calculate the tax rate, we originally used adjusted gross income (AGI), but we decided to switch over to expanded cash income (ECI), because this measure includes income that is not subject to income tax, like health insurance premiums paid by employers. This allows the calculator to provide a more accurate view of your tax rate. For a longer explanation, read this Q&A.

  98. BeccaM says:

    That’s why there’s this word known as ‘average.’

  99. BarackMcBush says:

    More Clinton propaganda:

    “The Daily Beast’s Bernie Bashing Bias”

  100. PogmoThoin13 says:

    What income are they using? Adjusted gross? And as for kids, what if they are grown but still dependent (health, handicap). What if the couple retired and has no work income? As with the ACA plan/calculators, this calculator is so simplified, and excludes so much information that it’s virtually useless.

  101. PogmoThoin13 says:

    ‘average single person and family pay for health insurance per year”
    There is no such thing. It varies widely state to state and even county to county in some cases.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS