It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

If Bernie Sanders is president the amount in additional taxes I would pay equals a new Honda Civic

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

couldn't have said it better- the disparity is getting worse and worse. Middle class? Says who! Where are they? Dwindling, that's for sure




posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Let's see the other guy takes home maybe 30,000 a year we'll say working the same hours as me, he gets to keep all his while I lose 150,000 of my 250,000 leaving me with 100,000, which is more than three times what he took home, even more after we consider profit after rent, utilities etc taken out of that take home pay since most of his went to just surviving. I have actual money to play with.

Yeah, I think I'm still good.

edit on 4/7/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Somewhere, there is someone who lives in perpetual envy of those who have more.

I don't. Not because I do or don't believe they may or may not deserve it but because I realize that soaking the rich is just another form of the same greed you accuse them of.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
datatitian.com... this one is not from the sanders camp but possibly from a sanders supporter but could at least provide a 3rd source for figuring out what would actually happen

www.reddit.com... few reddit links that also cover this

www.reddit.com...

so if any one can find a different source then vox or bernies own site we may be able to get to the bottom of this.


here is one thing i haven't seen brought up on ATS about bernies health care plan,if it ends up being a federal program(ie the fed would be providing health insurance via taxes) how does bernie intend to get around the hyde amendment?

the hyde amendment makes it so no federal funds go to abortion and if its not removed and his plan indeed would be funded by tax revenue how would women get covered for abortions? something like 5-10 states either will fund abortions on state level with their own funds but what about the states that dont? ive asked afew of his suporters on my fb about it and they say "well he will just repeal it " and that seems too much like him saying he can do things before they are done

www.thepeoplesview.net...

Berniecare and the Hyde Amendment: The End of Affordable Abortion Services for Poor and Middle Class Working Women Yesterday, Richard Mayhew at Balloon Juice noted that Sanders' plan leaves the federal law status quo intact with respect to federal funding of abortions. A long standing legal principle attached to many pieces of existing legislation is the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortions except in case of rape or a threat to the mother's life. Leaving this restriction is particularly troubling under a single-payer system. Sen. Sanders would prohibit the sale of private health insurance that duplicates any benefit of the his proposed federal program, and the likelihood that insurance companies would stick around just to sell abortion insurance is slimmer than that of Donald Trump falling in love with Mexicans. Hitting poor women the hardest The Hyde Amendment's mesh with a single payer system would mean that no woman in America would have insurance coverage for abortion. The consequences would hit poor women the hardest (as is becoming usual for Bernie's brand of "progressivism"). Although a majority of abortions are currently paid for out-of-pocket, fully 20% of all abortions are paid for by state Medicaid funds in the 17 states they are available, and 92% of women on Medicaid in those states seeking abortion services use such funding. Since Sanders would take away federal Medicaid funds as it would be channeled instead to his federally administered single-payer plan, states can hardly be expected to maintain an entire program on their own just to pay for abortion services. Effectively, under Bernie's plan, affordable access to abortion for poor women would end, achieving an important policy goal of right wing religious extremists.


www.balloon-juice.com...

en.wikipedia.org... wiki for hyde amendment note the EO passed by obama to keep it in which may further complicate its repeal

so i guess the TLDR will be how does he plan to repeal the Hyde amendment with the senate and house being a majority republicans ,and if he cant how will his plan for health care be modified to make sure women still be able to get abortions if they need them other then paying out of pocket and how will that effect his tax plan?



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
There comes a point in which the amount of money is more than any individual, their children or children's children would ever be able to spend in a lifetime.

It becomes just numbers on a screen at that point.

It must be a form of mental illness to want that number to keep growing at the expense of your fellow human beings.

It has to be mental illness, because quite frankly any other alternative scares the hell out of me.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I will be all on board with Bernie's tax plan as soon as you can show me how is he going to stop the wealthy from moving their money to a place he cant get at it?

His entire plan is predicated on soaking the rich right? So the entire plan is predicated on going after the one group of people in America that have the wealth/connections needed to move the majority to all of their wealth to a place he cant touch it...

What happens if he gets elected and everyone that can moves their wealth to a safe place form the tax man... oh yea whats left of the middle class dies.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
If you don't factor in what you pay for healthcare, then what you make will be lower under Sanders.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

It's wealth hoarding.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit


That individual has not done a solid days work since their acne wore off, but lives as if they had laid a railroad single handed during the gold rush.


LoL.

The brilliance of this sentence can not be expounded on enough.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

To a certain extent that's true, but you know what? That is their decision to make, not yours or mine. You and I might decide to give it all up in a burlap bag to the homeless man on the corner and put on sackcloth and ashes the very same day and an equal number of people would call us crazy, but that would be our decision to make.

The point is that why do you think you or anyone else has the right to decide for someone else what is or is not right for them?

This is the same basic question at the base of abortion, gay marriage, and many other issues. People looking at others and deciding that WE know better than they do what is right for them. Sure, you excuse it by hiding it under the false morality of telling yourself it's "for the children" but that's really all it is. You see someone living in a way that you disapprove of and you want to impose your will on them to stop it.


+4 more 
posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

This is nothing to do with greed. For a start, I have no dog in this fight, because Bernie is running for President of the United States of America, not the United Kingdom of Great Britain, so I have no personal stake in the matter.

I do not object to being financially challenged either. What I object to is persons who could stand to pay more tax without being adversely effected in the least, complaining at how hard done by they feel about being taxed. Let me break it down. Someone who has so much money that they could loose a million and laugh, has no right to bemoan paying a significant margin of tax to the nation in which he or she does business. Why? Because it is the nation that provides the workforce who actually produce things, it is the nation that provides the environment conducive to making the product and the market to sell it to, and the people who make that happen at ground level are more necessary to that environment, than any of these tycoons (save Nick Hanauer possibly) have ever appreciated.

If the power players knew half the worth of a good worker, then they would be paying them enough. Generally speaking, they are not. Jobs paying living wages are hard as hell to get, and there are not enough of them to service the needs of the population. Whose fault is that? Corporations and a corporate government. The least the fantastically wealthy can do, therefore, is to accept that:

a) being taxed hard does not make them a victim.

b) taxation based healthcare will save their companies money in the long term, because a healthy workforce is a productive workforce.

c) crying when you are not hurt is pathetic.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

I'm in a similar situation. Bernie will cost me about $13k per year in new taxes and fees, all while reducing the level of health care I currently have (which ain't much since the ACA kicked in, frankly), and that's all on top of the $18 Trillion his policies would add directly to the national debt.

The only "bern" that will be felt under this guy for the middle class is heartburn and wallet burn.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Care to break down that tax increase?

I'm showing I'll save money. Have you tried using the calculator I provided a page or two back instead of the Vox one?
edit on 7-4-2016 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

When a person's decisions affects millions to billions of people in the negative by destroying the economy, the "what right do you have..." argument starts to lose a lot of weight with me.
edit on 4/7/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

What I object to is the idea that it is somehow fair to take more from people as they have more because they somehow won't notice it missing.

It stems from the idea that a person really only needs so much.

Again, I ask: Who died and made you arbiter of "enough?"

See my post above.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

For that, you need to look at government.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   
With great wealth comes great power...

With great power comes great responsibility....

When you utilize society to gain a great fortune, you have a great moral obligation to that society.

For you see, without that society?

You would have never made your fortune.

It's kind of like taking care of your parents when they get old. Without your parents, you wouldn't have become a successful adult.

It's about giving back to the environment that enabled you. It's about not just stealing what you can from everyone and running off.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

See, been duped enough. The calculator you want people to use comes to us all from the same type of asshats who marketed Obamacare as "affordable" and a "savings," had George HW Bush convincing America to "read his lips, no new taxes" then raised them in office, Saw Obama swear no tax increase on those making less than $250k per year before then passing the single largest middle class tax increase in history and even had the BAWLS to sell it before the SCOTUS as "a tax."

These people are lying scumbags. Sure, if I decided to join the rolls of Kept Voters, living off the baggies of sunshine people like Sanders toss their minions in exchange for their votes, it might balance out. I'm not, though, so it isn't self-loathing for me to reject the biased and "only valid until he reaches the White House" Sanders' provided calculator as being exactly what it is: a tool intended to bolster the Kept Voter ranks.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

You say all that...
But you'll trust a Vox calculator that is proven bull#.


*Blinders on*



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

But vox is also lying and using things in its equations that it shouldn't. How can you trust that calculator either?




top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join