Vox’s new presidential tax calculator - 2016 version

election2016.taxpolicycenter.org...

Plug in your earnings, have a ball.

Just for fun I tossed in a single person earning minimum wage: $7.25 * 40 hours * 52 weeks = $15,080

a reply to: Teikiatsu

According to that calculator:
- I am better off under Trump
- I am WAY better off under Cruz (10% flat tax)
- Stay the same under Hillary
- Pay a cr@p-ton more if it's Bernie

So, as long as it isn't Bernie I guess I'll be ok

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Tax cuts from Trump and Cruz, no change from Clinton and a huge increase in taxes if Bernie was in office.

I guestimated at 40K a year, single father 2 kids.

Under Trump, I pay 2,160 less, which sounds pretty good.

Under Cruz I pay 162 less, which seems about as useless and middle-of-the-road as as you can get.

Under Clinton I pay 20 more, though nothing actually changes because everything is already awesome.

Under Sanders I pay 5,220 more which is an OMFG! number, to be honest. Scary stuff!

Now -- from the site itself, it says Bernie raises those taxes to offset the cost of single payer healthcare, free college, etc.

I currently pay about 7K a year for my health insurance, with zero pre-existing conditions, so that actually saves me about 1800 a year. Assuming he could actually make that happen, which is a giant assumption -- on both ends.

Hrmm. Decisions, decisions.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Eh, won't work for us. If Bernie raises taxes to set off pay for health care for all, we have employer coverage. Even with what we contribute per month, our Bernie taxes will still be bad enough to bankrupt us in additional cost. There is no guarantee employers will suddenly put the money they are paying for group coverage into an employee's salary when they suddenly don't have to pay.

So basically, we might save some on monthly check, but it won't offset what we would lose.

Ouch

My wallet, bank account and paycheck will definitely be feeling the bern

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Nearly 1500 less under Trump.

Nearly 5,000 more under Sanders. Poverty.

600 less under cruz.

20 more under clinton

42,000 a year. Married 2 kids

We dont go to doctors. We live healthy and natural. So I dont want healthcare.

Yeah, I am good. Trump 2016.

I'm in my first job and I make 35k/year, under Bernie I would be paying 4k more on top of what I already pay. Now I understand that his tax increases would be paying for healthcare and other things...but I wonder how he's going to pitch his proposals to single persons like me who have never visited an ER room before.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I have a $19,000 differential between Trump and Bernie Sanders...

Jesus God, as I've said many times before, my wallet can't afford a Sanders' presidency. He's a nice guy, but has about as much knowledge of economics as a cowflop.

Well, VOX doesn't jive with just about EVER OTHER SITE:



Wow, my taxes won't go up at all. Nice.

And let's take a DIRECT comparison. How about some perspective here folks, right? I mean let's deny some ignorance, shall we? This is from Forbes:



So as we can see, Trump wants to make the richer, well...richer. According to Fortune:

An analysis of Donald Trump’s tax plan by a research institute reveals two interesting points: the U.S. government would get a lot poorer, and the wealthy would get a lot richer.

Trump would add 11.2 TRILLION to the national debt by 2026:

While the plan cuts taxes for all income levels, the biggest cuts involve the highest-income level, both in dollar terms and as a percentage of income. By 2017, the highest-income 1% of taxpayers would receive a tax cut of 17.5% of after-tax income, and the top 0.1% — those with incomes of over $3.7 million in current dollars — would experience an average tax cut of more than $1.3 million, nearly 19% of after-tax income. In contrast, the lowest-income households would receive an average tax cut of $128, or 1% of after-tax income, in Trump’s plan. Overall, on average, the proposal would would cut income taxes by around $5,100 per person, or about 7% of after-tax income.

Fortune.com

More "trickle down" economics. Give the poor peons a bone, and make them think they're "WINNING!" -- while the robber barons continue to make off with MORE money, and hide it over seas.

When has the poor giving more to the rich ever made the poor better off?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Well VOX is a left leaning site, so it has no reason whatsoever to make Bernie look bad.

Oh, and before everyone gets "UP IN ARMS!" over this gimicky calculator? Yeah, it's not an honest calculator. There's some real problems with it. It's not truthful at all:

In fact, it's propaganda for Hillary Clinton:

Actually, it does no such thing; it’s a gimmick that is entirely useless except as a deceptive advertisement for Hillary Clinton. As a gimmick, it’s pretty simple. You put in your annual income (actually, your “expanded cash income,” which you probably don’t know even if you know what it is), whether you’re single or married and whether you have no kids, one kid, or two or more kids. And then it tells you what Donald Trump’s, Ted Cruz’s, Hillary Clinton’s and Bernie Sanders’ “plans mean for your federal tax liability.”

"Expanded cash income?" Wait, what?

“Pay $5,110 more”—holy smokes! Stop the revolution, I want to get off! Why didn’t someone (besides Vox’s Alvin Chang) tell me that “Sanders wants to implement massive increases across the board, including on the poor”? Maybe because he doesn’t—and you wouldn’t pay $5,110 more, or anything like it.

Mostly, that big number you get for the Sanders tax hike when you plug in your income is the payroll tax that employers will pay to cover the cost of a single-payer healthcare system. As the Tax Policy Center, which worked with Vox to create the calculator, explains:

We’re including payroll taxes, excise taxes and corporate income taxes as well as individual income taxes…. Most economists think employers pass their share of the tax on to workers in the form of lower wages.

With all due respect to most economists, this is dubious. Unless you work at the rare enterprise that does not have profit as its primary goal, your bosses are already paying you as little as they think they can get away with. If they get a new cost associated with your employment, they may try to raise their prices. They may look for other areas where they can cut costs. They may even decide that they can no longer afford to employ you. But what they won’t do is suddenly realize that they could have been paying you thousands of dollars less all along without you quitting. (They may even be forced to accept a lower profit rate, though that’s something “most economists” seem to exclude a priori.)

Oh, but that's not all:

But that’s not even the real problem with Vox’s calculator. Sanders’ plan is based on using a new payroll tax to pay for a single-payer healthcare system, which will relieve businesses of the considerable burden of paying for employee healthcare. Since just about everyone agrees that single-payer is cheaper than what we have now (including Ezra Klein, before Sanders started running against Clinton on a single-payer platform), in theory business as a whole should come out ahead. But certainly you need to take into account that business would be getting a big break on expenses at the same time that it’s getting a new tax, right?

Source

So it's deceptive, and doesn't give a true and honest assessment of how things will look.

Stop freaking out, read the information and educate yourselves before flipping out. I knew the SECOND I saw those numbers that this had to be propaganda and not truthful.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Well VOX is a left leaning site, so it has no reason whatsoever to make Bernie look bad.

VOX hates Sanders and is behind Clinton 110%. The owner, Ezra Klein is a huge Clinton fan and doesn't want Bernie to win the nomination. VOX has every incentive and motive to make Sander's look bad.

This would be like Fox News being supporting Cruz, and pushing stories to make Trump's tax plan look bad. It's twisted propaganda.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I don't see how it benefits Hillary.

I save a bundle under Trump, a little less under Cruz and nothing under Hillary.

So much energy to refute something that says something you don't like. Just because you don't feel the taxes now doesn't mean you are not taxed. Did I not point out this was a minimum wage calculation:



So deal with it.

a reply to: ketsuko

Shhhh, it doesn't fit the populist narrative, similar to how taxfoundation.org's chart proving Sanders plan results in significantly lower after tax income levels (called such to avoid Sanders' hoodoo of not classifying all of his tax increases as "income" taxes) is completely and adamantly ignored by the hive mentality folks.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

"Propaganda for Hillary Clinton"? Is Hillary a Trump supporter, because that calculator shows his plan kicks the ass of bother Bernie's and Hillary's plans!

a reply to: MystikMushroom

It's pretty crappy pro-Hillary propoganda if it makes both Trump and Cruz look AWESOME compared to both Hillary and Bernie.

With Hillary, the very best you can hope for is status quo. With Bernie, my husband may as well not have invested the last 5 to 7 years in his career because Bernie's plans will co-opt all that progress to the government. I'm not sure where any of you think he's been busting his hump for all of you and not his family.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Ohhhhh goodie. The "burn" will cost me $11k more a year.


All you Bernie supporters. You are clowns. Clowns voting for "free" crap because it just isn't fair.

a reply to: macman


"Fair" is a subjective term.

Work harder.

It will allow you to make more, which will allow you to provide for the people that don't work.


Wanting to keep want you earn isn't "fair", it's greedy.