How much will you "save" under bernies new income tax plan? -12,900 here. Keep in mind this is only income tax

Attached: Screen Shot 2020-02-29 at 4.07.28 PM.png (768x968, 520K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Attached: 4185498.jpg (960x949, 61K)

Wrong direction of development imo

I call bullshit, what were your inputs faggot?

so you never get sick or go to the doctor and never will?

I'm gonna be saving about $3300 per year. Sounds pretty great to me.


i pay that much yearly for healthcare.

I'll have almost 3k less money.

Attached: Screenshot_20200229-161843.png (1440x2560, 262K)

lol sure kid, you make almost 300K and you're shitposting on Cred Forums on a Saturday.

Attached: doubt.jpg (600x909, 31K)

premiums, i mean.

I am a doctor... health coverage through my employer.

so you're a single teacher and a doctor?

lmao someone doesn't understand tax brackets and how they work incrementally.
>B I G L M A O

You don't pay for premiums, co-pays, drug fills, anything?

If you have health insurance you probably pay at least a few thousand a year just for the insurance even if you skip every single checkup, etc.

If you don't have insurance, you probably pay an Obamacare tax penalty

>doesn't realize how much of his paycheck is deducted for healthcare

Right because employers, who will be paying more in taxes, will just be like oh i dont need to include healthcare in my package so ill forward that into my employees paycheck l00l

I lose money...

Attached: Screen Shot 2020-02-29 at 4.33.51 PM.png (2854x830, 176K)

I more or less break even according to that calculator. I make $73,000/year as an entry-level engineer. My health insurance premiums cost around $125/month, which is $1500/year, and last year I spent at least $1000 on medical expenses that weren't covered by my insurance.

Numerous studies, including predictions made by the congressional budget office, indicate that universal single-payer healthcare in the US would save hundreds of billions of dollars and improve outcomes for patients. It also works pretty well in the 20-odd other countries that have single payer systems.

The real question is whether Sanders' supposed method of paying for the new system would actually cover all the costs. It could be that instead of breaking even, I'd pay a bit more. That would be fine with me: I'm in a fortunate position and I want my fellow citizens to have good health coverage. Besides, I might get laid off some day and I don't want to have to worry about shitty healthcare if that happens.

Attached: SarcasmDetector.jpg (255x232, 13K)

they'll likely pay less in taxes because there's no profit margin with the government.


>healthcare cost $100

Yeah this is just wrong. You must be on Trump's health insurance plan where you pay a couple dollars a month, and by the end of the year you got a good plan going.

(He was confusing term life insurance plans for babies that get advertised on FOX with health insurance, because as a trust fund brat he has no concept of what things cost or how things work.)

>services are cheaper when provided by the government than the private sector
>it's just common sense

it's true though. But being a Republican means you'd rather pay $500 to the insurance companies than $50 to the government. idiots.

you would pay $500 to the government under bernies plan making 24,700 per year. Not 50, idiot.

Here's the real calculator. You're full of shit.

Saves me around $1000ish, assuming I never actually use my healthcare, more if I do.

Healthy 20 year old with a starter job at Walmart

Attached: Screen Shot 2020-02-29 at 4.44.45 PM.png (2940x842, 173K)

my sides

Oh hey, it's a post from the bloomberg campaign to slander Bernie. Big shock.

lol god forbid one of the biggest companies on earth pay you a bit more. But no, you shill for them and blame the government.

Save over 20k

Not a bloomberg suporter... Not slander, just demonstrating the cost of one aspect of the bernie tax plan, not including capital gains, estate tax, energy tax, payroll tax, social security tax, and carried interests.

Thats not the company... thats the employee you mammouth retard

Also yea.. they have to pay more in taxes so they are going to decide to pay their employees more kek

yeah, I know. way to miss the point lol

you're forgetting that the taxes will be less than the insurance premiums because there's no profit margin with the government. how is this simple fact beyond your grasp?

>there's no profit margin with the government

you are an actual downie

Reminder: the government only taxes your income, whilst your employer only pays you a fraction of the revenue you generate by working. Anyone getting upset about the government taking a chunk out of your check should be furious about the scraps you are paid out of your actual productivity.

are you saying there is one? Because I'd love to see your proof.


Attached: 1571018873299.jpg (2197x1242, 1.5M)

If businesses don't make a profit, they dont exist. Why relinquish personal freedom to the government. Not only do I not want them taking more of my money, I also don't want them controlling my health care. Bernie institutes single payer, next president is Mike Pence, "Hey guys birth control, and abortions are no longer covered, good luck"

Attached: Screen Shot 2020-02-29 at 4.58.47 PM.png (2972x810, 176K)

you're actually retarded.

Why is that unheard of? I make $252k and shitpost on a Saturday because I'm stuck at home with a sleeping baby at the moment.

Give your freedom to the government, they control your life

Because berniebros cant fathom that successful people exist

>believing people making bank shitpost on Cred Forums
don't be so gullible

so once you start taking medicare, you've lost your freedom to the government?

2888 dollars, not bad

It is the right of the American People to vote for Suicide of the Country.
If the majority want to die?
Then we shall die.
Those who survive shall build something new.

>If businesses don't make a profit, they dont exist.

There is such a thing as a non-profit, user.

>Why relinquish personal freedom to the government.

This seems off-topic, but government ownership isn't the only alternative to corporate/private ownership. One could structure an economy based on profit sharing/coops, or simply have much stronger worker unions with union-corporation negotiations mediated by the government. With workers in a stronger position to negotiate, they would get a bigger share of the profits they help generate.

>Not only do I not want them taking more of my money, I also don't want them controlling my health care.

But if the government doesn't control your healthcare, then the healthcare providers control your healthcare. Before Obamacare you could be denied insurance for having expensive conditions. Even now, your employer controls which healthcare plans you have access to, and sometimes they go with shitty plans that don't cover you well.

>Bernie institutes single payer, next president is Mike Pence, "Hey guys birth control, and abortions are no longer covered, good luck"
The alternative to government control is not that you get control, it's often that some rich asshole gets control and uses it to profit from you.

That would be more concerning if conservatives weren't already trying and succeeding at this nationwide. There's also no reason to believe that clinics like Planned Parenthood would cease to exist. They already receive little funding from the government because of evangelicals pushing laws that prevent federal spending on any clinic that performs abortions, despite the fact that this just hurts people going in for regular check-ups or affordable birth control... which would reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

You seem like not-an-idiot, I just don't think you've thought about this all the way through.

Attached: WerewolfSMBC.jpg (257x256, 28K)

fake, these niggers also said people would save under nigger care

So if I remember correctly lower disposable income is never good

They would have been correct if Republicans hadn't taken every opportunity to ruin niggercare. First the Public Option, which was meant to compete with private insurance, was written out of the law, then a bunch of states didn't expand medicaid even though it would have saved them money, then since 2016 the government has done nothing to advertise the marketplace, meaning the risk pool is smaller and less healthy, and dramatically more costly, and finally the individual mandate, the part of the law meant to expand the risk pool and bring down costs, was struck down by lawsuits.

Republicans campaign on the dysfunction of government and then get into office and prove it.

Attached: BoredHankHill.jpg (208x210, 10K)

Yeah, good. OK.

Attached: 1.png (1190x384, 27K)

Thank you for a well thought out argument. We just have a fundamental disagreement. I agree that someone is in "control", but if you relinquish that control to a single payer you are in the worst possible position as a buyer. Under free market capitalism you are free as a consumer to shop for your most ideal plan. If there is only one payor that entity has 100% of the power.

Attached: Screen Shot 2020-02-29 at 5.24.14 PM.png (2986x856, 177K)

>Under free market capitalism you are free as a consumer to shop for your most ideal plan.

This is less true than you think for two main reasons.

1: You don't always get to shop around when it comes to healthcare. You can't decide that a drug you need is too expensive and go shop for alternatives if there aren't any alternatives, and sometimes the urgency of your situation prohibits shopping around. You can shop around for different plans, but often your employer decides what to offer. At my work I can choose a silver or gold plan and that's it.

2: There aren't that many players in the market because health insurance lends itself to natural monopolies or oligopolies. Without competition, you don't have free market capitalism. Similar to how most people have two ISP's to choose from, you probably only have two or three health insurance providers to choose from, and they're happy to coordinate to keep profits high. That's without even considering individual drugs manufactured by the pharma industry.

In most situations, I'd prefer a federal mandate and grants that *states* provide services which the public has decided are essential or which lend themselves to natural monopolies. (Utilities, construction of roads, public education are all examples where the federal government helps states accomplish the goal without telling them exactly how to do it.)

Healthcare is a particular exception because the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries are massive and powerful enough to actually buy the laws they want at the state level. We as a population need the collective bargaining power of the federal government representing us against these blood sucking vampires.