It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Let's put Bernie's Tax Plan Into Perspective [Ignore, Bad Math]

page: 1
5
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:23 AM
*****Ignore this, my math was wrong! Thanks Bluntone22 for correcting my mistake! It actually equals out to about \$6,000 per person. Yikes!*****

So there's a thread HERE that points out that Sanders plans on adding \$19.6 trillion dollars in taxes over the next 10 years. People may see that 19.6 trillion number and think "wow, that's a lot of money, I can't afford that!", but they fail to realize that they are not going to be paying it alone. So how about we put that number into perspective?

So \$19.6 trillion over 10 years equals out to \$1.96 trillion more per year in taxes. The population is about 318 million, so let's divide that 19.6 trillion by the population. That equals out to about \$6.16 PER YEAR more in taxes PER PERSON. But let's be generous, halving the population because not everyone is able to pay income tax such as children and the elderly. That would be roughly 160 million people, which equals out to be about \$12.32 PER PERSON in taxes PER YEAR.

Let's divide that 12.32 by 365 days, that equals out to about .03 cents (only 1/3 of a penny) per day in taxes. So you're telling me you can't afford less than a penny per day more in taxes? I'd say you're lying if you say you can't. You probably lose more money per day than you would be paying with this new tax plan.

So... what's the big deal? That it's going to the government? If that's the case, boycott taxes completely because you'll be paying them anyways no matter who's in office. You can't NOT pay taxes, that's the way our country stays afloat.

I can give you your years worth of extra taxes right now cash and I don't think it would hurt me too much. \$12 is nothing when spread out over an entire year. So let's stop sensationalizing everything and put it into perspective before we go off the deep end. It honestly is not THAT bad. Of course it will seem bad when looking at that huge number, but that number is spread out very thinly between each person.

So yeah, it's not that bad when you look at it in perspective.
edit on 1/19/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/19/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:26 AM
We need taxed more.
The government does such a great job with the money that they take now.

Full sarcasm attached.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:28 AM

.03 cents per day, what a travesty!

If Bernie gets in office and does what he says he will do then the taxes will be going to the right places. Whether Bernie is genuine or not is still up in the air, I don't support him any more than the other candidates (well maybe more than Trump), but his tax plan isn't as bad as it may seem at first glance.
edit on 1/19/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:35 AM

Is the US government corrupt?

Would giving the corrupt US government 1.96 trillion dollars/year be a good thing?

If it's only .00003 cents a year (or whatever your figures were) then why can't they end poverty and do this now? What is stopping them? If it's such a tiny fraction, then why aren't they doing this now?

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:36 AM
You didn't include children and the elderly to arrive at your paltry '.03 cents per day'. What about the people that will be getting some of that money and don't work, don't pay taxes?

If your numbers worked, we should all be able to kick in a couple of bucks a day and pay off the national debt.... and have enough left over to pay us all back the money.... doubled.... plus some more!

Except for the fact that the government collects the money and divvies it out for votes.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:40 AM

People cannot afford any tax hike if they are unemployed or underemployed. Furthermore, businesses collect tax on sales...so if the economy is failing, so is collecting tax dollars. But if this was countered with cost cutting measures within the government in terms of wasteful spending, then the Sanders plan makes sense. But so far all the corruption in the white house is preventing any politician to make a positive change in America. When talking about economics, Bernie Sanders hasn't a clue of what he is talking about. He is not have a Masters in Economics or Finance.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:40 AM

So let's all stop paying taxes then... If the money goes to healthcare (\$14 trillion of it according to the plan), I'm all for it. If we can get proper healthcare then it is more than worth it in my eyes, I want to look after the less fortunate even if others don't. It couldn't be much worse than the ACA could it?

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:41 AM

If you had read the OP you would have seen I DID include the children and elderly in my math. If I didn't, it would have equaled out to .06 cents per day. That is so much worse... I guess?

This is why you read the entire OP before posting.
edit on 1/19/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:42 AM
My math is showing 1.96 trillion divided by 320 million is over 6000 dollars each.
Did I do my math wrong.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:42 AM

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So let's all stop paying taxes then... If the money goes to healthcare (\$14 trillion of it according to the plan), I'm all for it. If we can get proper healthcare then it is more than worth it in my eyes, I want to look after the less fortunate even if others don't. It couldn't be much worse than the ACA could it?

I bolded that line.

YOU want to look after the less fortunate.

That's great! Wonderful!

Government doesn't give two sh!ts about the less fortunate.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:42 AM

Sanders is talking about cutting back our military spending, so I think it's safe to say he had that in mind when coming up with this tax plan.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:45 AM

originally posted by: Bluntone22
My math is showing 1.96 trillion divided by 320 million is over 6000 dollars each.
Did I do my math wrong.

With only a third of the US actually working and paying taxes. . . .

1.96 trillion divided by 100 million is 19,600 dollars per year that people (workers) would be taxed more.

Just @ 20 thousand per year.

Cough it up!

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:46 AM
Is my math way off or isn't 1.96 trillion divided by 318 million more like \$6,163 per person? so more like \$16 per person per day?

I hate math so please correct me if I am wrong.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:47 AM

First, the entire population does not work. Second, there are 100 million out of the workforce. Third, this is a projected amount and if we know anything of politics is that in the end it will cost more.

Bottom line is that to try to pay for healthcare there are 3 new taxes.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:48 AM

Oh wow, I really put my foot in my mouth here didn't I? It is \$6,000 per person. Your math is right, mine is wrong.

Maybe it is as bad as it sounds after all! I didn't add enough zeroes to my numbers apparently. Sorry guys, my mistake.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:55 AM

You're right, I'm wrong.

I've always been pretty bad at math but this is kind of embarrassing.

Foot is squarely in mouth right now.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:55 AM
Yes with your 160 million taxpayers it equals out to a thousand a month. Personally, I can't afford to "feel the bern"

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:55 AM

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Sanders is talking about cutting back our military spending, so I think it's safe to say he had that in mind when coming up with this tax plan.

Why cut back on military? The country was built up for security many years ago...and now he wants it to be softer? What an idiot.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:56 AM

No worries, it happens.

That should put the nearly 20 trillion in debt in more perspective

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:57 AM
nvm redid maths

edit on 19-1-2016 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

5